Glycaemic control, disease duration and beta-cell function in patients with Type 2 diabetes in a Swedish community. Skaraborg Hypertension and Diabetes Project.

AimsTo examine determinants for glycaemic control in primary care patients with Type 2 diabetes. MethodsIn a community-based surveillance of primary care patients with Type 2 diabetes, 190 men and 186 women were consecutively identified and examined for cardiovascular risk factors. Insulin resistance and beta-cell function were estimated using homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Good glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c = 6.5% was associated with duration of diabetes (10.6 vs. 6.4 years, P = 6.5% by 5 years diabetes duration = 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.1) but was lost following additional adjustment for beta-cell function (OR for HbA1c>= 6.5% = 1.3; 95% CI 0.96-1.7). In a separate linear regression with beta-cell function as the dependent variable there was a significant association with HbA1c after adjustments for differences in age, gender, WHR, serum triglyceride levels and diabetes duration (P < 0.001). ConclusionsIncreasing HbA1c by time was associated with declining beta-cell function

Family doctors' knowledge and self-reported care of type 2 diabetes patients in comparison to the clinical practice guideline: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that providing doctors with guidelines will lead to more effective clinical practice and better patient care. However, different studies have shown contradictory results in quality improvement as a result of guideline implementation. The aim of this study was to compare family doctors' knowledge and self-reported care of type 2 diabetes patients with recommendation standards of the clinical practice guideline. METHODS: In April 2003 a survey was conducted among family doctors in Estonia. The structured questionnaire focused on the knowledge and self-reported behavior of doctors regarding the guideline of type 2 diabetes. The demographic and professional data of the respondents was also provided. RESULTS: Of the 354 questionnaires distributed, 163 were returned for a response rate of 46%. Seventy-six percent of the responded doctors stated that they had a copy of the guideline available while 24% reported that they did not. Eighty-three percent of the doctors considered it applicable and 79% reported using it in daily practice. The doctors tended to start treatment with medications and were satisfied with treatment outcomes at higher fasting blood glucose levels than the levels recommended in the guideline. Doctors' self-reported performance of the tests and examinations named in the guideline, which should be performed within a certain time limit, varied from overuse to underuse. Blood pressure, serum creatinine, eye examination and checking patients' ability to manage their diabetes were the best-followed items while glycosylated hemoglobin and weight reduction were the most poorly followed. Doctors' behavior was not related to the fact of whether they had the guideline available, whether they considered it applicable, or whether they actually used it. CONCLUSION: Doctors' knowledge and self-reported behavior in patient follow-up of type 2 diabetes is very variable and is not related to the reported availability or usage of the guideline. Practice guidelines may be a useful source of information but they should not be overestimated

Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computerized Clinical Records, which are incorporated in primary health care practice, have great potential for research. In order to use this information, data quality and reliability must be assessed to prevent compromising the validity of the results.</p> <p>The aim of this study is to validate the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the computerized clinical records of primary health care, taking the diagnosis criteria established in the most prominently used clinical guidelines as the gold standard against which what measure the sensitivity, specificity, and determine the predictive values.</p> <p>The gold standard for diabetes mellitus was the diagnostic criteria established in 2003 American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement for diabetic subjects. The gold standard for hypertension was the diagnostic criteria established in the Joint National Committee published in 2003.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional multicentre validation study of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnoses in computerized clinical records of primary health care was carried out. Diagnostic criteria from the most prominently clinical practice guidelines were considered for standard reference.</p> <p>Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and global agreement (with kappa index), were calculated. Results were shown overall and stratified by sex and age groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The agreement for diabetes mellitus with the reference standard as determined by the guideline was almost perfect (κ = 0.990), with a sensitivity of 99.53%, a specificity of 99.49%, a positive predictive value of 91.23% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%.</p> <p>Hypertension diagnosis showed substantial agreement with the reference standard as determined by the guideline (κ = 0.778), the sensitivity was 85.22%, the specificity 96.95%, the positive predictive value 85.24%, and the negative predictive value was 96.95%. Sensitivity results were worse in patients who also had diabetes and in those aged 70 years or over.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results substantiate the validity of using diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension found within the computerized clinical records for epidemiologic studies.</p