{"title":"医疗保健质量改进方案改善了对糖尿病患者的监测","authors":"Petra Denig PhD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does a healthcare quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, increase the regularity with which primary care physicians assess people with diabetes mellitus receiving Medicare benefits?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cluster randomised controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>22, 971 Medicare recipients with diabetes who could be linked with one of 477 study physicians in 123 non-urban counties were identified. The health care quality improvement programme significantly improved monitoring of circulating glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in people with diabetes compared with a no-intervention comparison group (see Table 1). There was no significant difference in number of eye exams or monitoring of urine protein levels between groups.<span><div><div><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Table 1</strong> Proportion of people tested with quality indicators at baseline and follow-up.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality indicator test</td><td>Health care quality improvement programme</td><td>Comparison Group</td><td>Difference in change from baseline between intervention and control groups (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)</td><td>Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)</td><td>Change from baseline to follow up</td><td>Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)</td><td>Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)</td><td>Change from baseline to follow up</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>HbA1c</td><td>34.3</td><td>51.1</td><td>16.8</td><td>37.2</td><td>50.2</td><td>13.0</td><td>4.0 (0.7 to 7.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Eye exams</td><td>38.9</td><td>39.4</td><td>0.5</td><td>39.3</td><td>39.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.0 (-1.1 to 3.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative urine protein</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.4</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.1 (-2.1 to 3.0)</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span></p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>The population-based health care quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, improved care of people with diabetes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 122-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare quality improvement programme improves monitoring of people with diabetes\",\"authors\":\"Petra Denig PhD (Commentary Author)\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does a healthcare quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, increase the regularity with which primary care physicians assess people with diabetes mellitus receiving Medicare benefits?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cluster randomised controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>22, 971 Medicare recipients with diabetes who could be linked with one of 477 study physicians in 123 non-urban counties were identified. The health care quality improvement programme significantly improved monitoring of circulating glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in people with diabetes compared with a no-intervention comparison group (see Table 1). There was no significant difference in number of eye exams or monitoring of urine protein levels between groups.<span><div><div><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Table 1</strong> Proportion of people tested with quality indicators at baseline and follow-up.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality indicator test</td><td>Health care quality improvement programme</td><td>Comparison Group</td><td>Difference in change from baseline between intervention and control groups (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)</td><td>Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)</td><td>Change from baseline to follow up</td><td>Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)</td><td>Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)</td><td>Change from baseline to follow up</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>HbA1c</td><td>34.3</td><td>51.1</td><td>16.8</td><td>37.2</td><td>50.2</td><td>13.0</td><td>4.0 (0.7 to 7.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Eye exams</td><td>38.9</td><td>39.4</td><td>0.5</td><td>39.3</td><td>39.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.0 (-1.1 to 3.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative urine protein</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.4</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.1 (-2.1 to 3.0)</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span></p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>The population-based health care quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, improved care of people with diabetes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 122-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.005\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462941004000403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462941004000403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Healthcare quality improvement programme improves monitoring of people with diabetes
Question
Does a healthcare quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, increase the regularity with which primary care physicians assess people with diabetes mellitus receiving Medicare benefits?
Study design
Cluster randomised controlled trial.
Main results
22, 971 Medicare recipients with diabetes who could be linked with one of 477 study physicians in 123 non-urban counties were identified. The health care quality improvement programme significantly improved monitoring of circulating glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in people with diabetes compared with a no-intervention comparison group (see Table 1). There was no significant difference in number of eye exams or monitoring of urine protein levels between groups.
Table 1 Proportion of people tested with quality indicators at baseline and follow-up.
Quality indicator test
Health care quality improvement programme
Comparison Group
Difference in change from baseline between intervention and control groups (95% CI)
Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)
Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)
Change from baseline to follow up
Proportion of people tested at baseline (%)
Proportion of people tested at follow up (%)
Change from baseline to follow up
HbA1c
34.3
51.1
16.8
37.2
50.2
13.0
4.0 (0.7 to 7.3)
Eye exams
38.9
39.4
0.5
39.3
39.5
0.2
1.0 (-1.1 to 3.1)
Quantitative urine protein
2.8
4.6
1.8
2.7
4.4
1.7
0.1 (-2.1 to 3.0)
Authors’ conclusions
The population-based health care quality improvement programme, incorporating education and claims-based feedback about practice-specific models of monitoring diabetes care, improved care of people with diabetes.