Diabetes care: reasons for missing HbA1c measurements in general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) is often used as one of the indicators to measure the quality of diabetes care. Complete registration is difficult to obtain. This study investigated the reasons for missing HbA_1cmeasurements.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>HbA_1cmeasurements for 1485 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 who were attended by 19 general practitioners at 4 primary care health centres in south-east Amsterdam were studied. HbA_1cmeasurements were missing for 356 (23.9%) of the patients. The main reason stated in 50% of the cases was that the patient was under specialized care.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The general practitioners provided multiple reasons for the missing HbA_1cmeasurements. This study provides insight into why HbA_1cmeasurements were not present in the patients' electronic medical record.</p

Computerized clinical decision support systems for chronic disease management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve chronic disease management, which requires recurrent visits to multiple health professionals, ongoing disease and treatment monitoring, and patient behavior modification. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve the processes of chronic care (such as diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of disease) and associated patient outcomes (such as effects on biomarkers and clinical exacerbations).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for potentially eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS was designed to support chronic disease management. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of relevant outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 55 included trials, 87% (n = 48) measured system impact on the process of care and 52% (n = 25) of those demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Sixty-five percent (36/55) of trials measured impact on, typically, non-major (surrogate) patient outcomes, and 31% (n = 11) of those demonstrated benefits. Factors of interest to decision makers, such as cost, user satisfaction, system interface and feature sets, unique design and deployment characteristics, and effects on user workflow were rarely investigated or reported.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small majority (just over half) of CCDSSs improved care processes in chronic disease management and some improved patient health. Policy makers, healthcare administrators, and practitioners should be aware that the evidence of CCDSS effectiveness is limited, especially with respect to the small number and size of studies measuring patient outcomes.</p