To conduct a service evaluation of usability and utility on-line clinical audit tools developed as part of a UK Classification of Diabetes project to improve the categorisation and ultimately management of diabetes

de Lusignan, S

Desombre, T

Hassan Sadek, N

Khunti, K

Sadek, AR

Tahir, A

English

PubMed

Surrey Research Insight

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control.

Aims: To conduct a service evaluation of usability and utility on-line clinical audit tools developed as part of a UK Classification of Diabetes project to improve the categorisation and ultimately management of diabetes.
Method: We conducted the evaluation in eight volunteer computerised practices all achieving maximum pay-for-performance (P4P) indicators for diabetes; two allowed direct observation and videotaping of the process of running the on-line audit. We also reported the utility of the searches and the national levels of uptake.
Results: Once launched 4235 unique visitors accessed the download pages in the first 3 months. We had feedback about problems from 10 practices, 7 were human error. Clinical audit naive staff ran the audits satisfactorily. However, they would prefer more explanation and more user-familiar tools built into their practice computerised medical record system. They wanted the people misdiagnosed and misclassified flagged and to be convinced miscoding mattered. People with T2DM misclassified as T1DM tended to be older (mean 62 vs. 47 years old). People misdiagnosed as having T2DM have apparently ‘excellent’ glycaemic control mean HbA1c 5.3% (34 mmol/mol) vs. 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) (p < 0.001). People with vague codes not included in the P4P register (miscoded) have worse glycaemic control [HbA1c 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) SEM = 0.42 vs.7.0% (53 mmol/mol) SEM = 0.11, p = 0.006].
Conclusions: There was scope to improve diabetes management in practice achieving quality targets. Apparently ‘excellent’ glycaemic control may imply misdiagnosis, while miscoding is associated with worse control. On-line clinical audit toolkits provide a rapid method of dissemination and should be added to the armamentarium of quality improvement interventions

Sadek, A-R

Oxford University Research Archive

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control

AIMS: To conduct a service evaluation of usability and utility on-line clinical audit tools developed as part of a UK Classification of Diabetes project to improve the categorisation and ultimately management of diabetes. METHOD: We conducted the evaluation in eight volunteer computerised practices all achieving maximum pay-for-performance (P4P) indicators for diabetes; two allowed direct observation and videotaping of the process of running the on-line audit. We also reported the utility of the searches and the national levels of uptake. RESULTS: Once launched 4235 unique visitors accessed the download pages in the first 3 months. We had feedback about problems from 10 practices, 7 were human error. Clinical audit naive staff ran the audits satisfactorily. However, they would prefer more explanation and more user-familiar tools built into their practice computerised medical record system. They wanted the people misdiagnosed and misclassified flagged and to be convinced miscoding mattered. People with T2DM misclassified as T1DM tended to be older (mean 62 vs. 47 years old). People misdiagnosed as having T2DM have apparently 'excellent' glycaemic control mean HbA1c 5.3% (34 mmol/mol) vs. 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) (p<0.001). People with vague codes not included in the P4P register (miscoded) have worse glycaemic control [HbA1c 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) SEM=0.42 vs.7.0% (53mmol/mol) SEM=0.11, p=0.006]. CONCLUSIONS: There was scope to improve diabetes management in practice achieving quality targets. Apparently 'excellent' glycaemic control may imply misdiagnosis, while miscoding is associated with worse control. On-line clinical audit toolkits provide a rapid method of dissemination and should be added to the armamentarium of quality improvement interventions

De Lusignan, S

University of Melbourne Institutional Repository

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: Excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control

N. Hassan Sadek

A.‐R. Sadek

A. Tahir

K. Khunti

T. Desombre

S. de Lusignan

Crossref

St George's Online Research Archive

A method of identifying and correcting miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis in diabetes: a pilot and validation study of routinely collected data. Diabet Med

A system for solution-orientated reporting of errors associated with the extraction of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160(Pt 1): 724–

and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on diabetes management. Implement Sci

Automated identification of miscoded and misclassified cases of diabetes from computer records. Diabet Med

Bottle A et al. Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care. CMAJ

Classification of Diabetes toolkit.

classification, and treatment of diabetes.

cloud and agent: choosing strategies for quality improvement and research based on routinely collected health data. Inform Prim Care

Coding, Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes.

Community-based primary care: improving and assessing diabetes management.

Computerised routinely collected primary care data: essential for patient access to records, quality improvement and research. Inform Prim Care

Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative focusing on patients with diabetes. Med Care

Delivering the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis.

Excel eGFR Calculator (for Multiple Calculations). http://www. clininf.eu/ckd (open the link to the Excel calculator – direct download http://www.clininf.eu/wrapped/gfr/ gfr.xls[Accessed

Incorrect and incomplete coding and classification of diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med

Key Methods in Geography.

Manuals and queries data extraction:

misclassification and misdiagnosis of diabetes in primary care. Diabet Med

Online resources for chronic kidney disease (CKD) for primary care. Inform Prim Care

Patient-centred and professional-directed implementation strategies for diabetes guidelines: a cluster-randomized trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Diabet Med

Population-based assessment of the level of care among adults with diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care

Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions. Qual Saf Health Care

Quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands and the United States: a comparison of two quality improvement programs. Health Serv Res

Self-audit tools in primary care ª

The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam Pract

User Manual for MIQUEST Data Extraction PCI-MH-08 Query Set. Primary Care Informatics, St. George’s Self-audit tools in primary care 881 ª

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:65dd55ec-23c5-43ec-8c04-263a87083411/files/sb2773x745

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Surrey Research Insight

Oxford University Research Archive

University of Melbourne Institutional Repository

Crossref

St George's Online Research Archive