Improving Diabetes Monitoring in People with Sub-optimally Controlled Diabetes: Implementing a Clinical Laboratory-Led Quality Improvement Initiative in General Practice.
David Holland, Ian Halsall, Adrian H Heald, Mike Stedman, Fahmy W F Hanna, Anthony A Fryer
{"title":"Improving Diabetes Monitoring in People with Sub-optimally Controlled Diabetes: Implementing a Clinical Laboratory-Led Quality Improvement Initiative in General Practice.","authors":"David Holland, Ian Halsall, Adrian H Heald, Mike Stedman, Fahmy W F Hanna, Anthony A Fryer","doi":"10.1007/s13300-025-01766-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The appropriate use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), the international standard for assessing overall glycaemic status in diabetes mellitus, is critical to ensuring optimal clinical outcome and minimise complications. We describe a clinical laboratory-led general practice service development to facilitate targeted follow-up in high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The service development comprised monthly reports identifying high-risk individuals (HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol) overdue HbA1c testing, sent by the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory to general practices in the 'Intervention' group (n = 60). A 'Non-intervention' group comprised 51 practices not sent the reports. Comparisons comprised: (i) intervention vs non-intervention groups during two time periods (pre-intervention: 2017-2020; 275,843 tests; 59,206 patients, and post-intervention: 2020-2023; 307,525 tests; 65,449 patients), (ii) pre- versus post-intervention in each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention group (vs non-intervention group) showed larger net change in proportion overdue a test (- 20.6% vs - 10.3%, p < 0.001), particularly in the > 75 mmol/mol category (7.8-fold larger improvement, p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed in median time overdue in the 58-75 mmol/mol group (- 14.3 vs - 4.3%; p = 0.027). Improvements were identified in median HbA1c (p = 0.012) and overall proportion with HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (p = 0.037), compared with the non-intervention group, despite performing more tests/patient/year (p < 0.001). All remained significant after adjustment for practice characteristics (age, sex, social deprivation, list size, diabetes prevalence) and pre-intervention levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that clinical laboratories can support general practices facilitating targeting monitoring to high-risk patients. Providing succinct reports that identify patients overdue for testing can reduce the number of such patients, thereby improving diabetes control and increasing the achievement of target levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":11192,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-025-01766-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The appropriate use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), the international standard for assessing overall glycaemic status in diabetes mellitus, is critical to ensuring optimal clinical outcome and minimise complications. We describe a clinical laboratory-led general practice service development to facilitate targeted follow-up in high-risk patients.
Methods: The service development comprised monthly reports identifying high-risk individuals (HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol) overdue HbA1c testing, sent by the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory to general practices in the 'Intervention' group (n = 60). A 'Non-intervention' group comprised 51 practices not sent the reports. Comparisons comprised: (i) intervention vs non-intervention groups during two time periods (pre-intervention: 2017-2020; 275,843 tests; 59,206 patients, and post-intervention: 2020-2023; 307,525 tests; 65,449 patients), (ii) pre- versus post-intervention in each group.
Results: The intervention group (vs non-intervention group) showed larger net change in proportion overdue a test (- 20.6% vs - 10.3%, p < 0.001), particularly in the > 75 mmol/mol category (7.8-fold larger improvement, p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed in median time overdue in the 58-75 mmol/mol group (- 14.3 vs - 4.3%; p = 0.027). Improvements were identified in median HbA1c (p = 0.012) and overall proportion with HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (p = 0.037), compared with the non-intervention group, despite performing more tests/patient/year (p < 0.001). All remained significant after adjustment for practice characteristics (age, sex, social deprivation, list size, diabetes prevalence) and pre-intervention levels.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that clinical laboratories can support general practices facilitating targeting monitoring to high-risk patients. Providing succinct reports that identify patients overdue for testing can reduce the number of such patients, thereby improving diabetes control and increasing the achievement of target levels.
期刊介绍:
Diabetes Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all areas of diabetes. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Diabetes Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.