Type 2 diabetes in general practice in Norway 2005–2014: moderate improvements in risk factor control but still major gaps in complication screening

ObjectiveTo assess the status of type 2 diabetes care in general practice and changes in the quality of care between 2005 and 2014, and to identify areas of diabetes care requiring improvement.Research design and methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were performed that included patients with type 2 di...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open diabetes research & care 2017-11, Vol.5 (1), p.e000459-e000459
Hauptverfasser: Bakke, Åsne, Cooper, John G, Thue, Geir, Skeie, Svein, Carlsen, Siri, Dalen, Ingvild, Løvaas, Karianne Fjeld, Madsen, Tone Vonheim, Oord, Ellen Renate, Berg, Tore Julsrud, Claudi, Tor, Tran, Anh Thi, Gjelsvik, Bjørn, Jenum, Anne Karen, Sandberg, Sverre
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectiveTo assess the status of type 2 diabetes care in general practice and changes in the quality of care between 2005 and 2014, and to identify areas of diabetes care requiring improvement.Research design and methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were performed that included patients with type 2 diabetes in selected areas (n=9464 in 2014, n=5463 in 2005). Quality of care was assessed based on key recommendations in national guidelines. Differences in clinical performance between 2005 and 2014 were assessed in regression models adjusting for age, sex, counties and clustering within general practices.ResultsTreatment targets were achieved in a higher proportion of patients in 2014 compared with 2005: hemoglobin A1c ≤7.0% (≤53 mmol/mol) in 62.8% vs 54.3%, blood pressure ≤135/80 mm Hg in 44.9% vs 36.6%, and total cholesterol ≤4.5 mmol/L in 49.9% vs 33.5% (all adjusted P≤0.001). Regarding screening procedures for microvascular complications, fewer patients had recorded an eye examination (61.0% vs 71.5%, adjusted P
ISSN:2052-4897
2052-4897
DOI:10.1136/bmjdrc-2017-000459