The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature

Trine Lignell Guldberg, Torsten Lauritzen, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Peter Vedsted, Trine Lignell Guldberg, Torsten Lauritzen, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Peter Vedsted

Abstract

Background: There have been numerous efforts to improve and assure the quality of treatment and follow-up of people with Type 2 diabetes (PT2D) in general practice. Facilitated by the increasing usability and validity of guidelines, indicators and databases, feedback on diabetes care is a promising tool in this aspect. Our goal was to assess the effect of feedback to general practitioners (GPs) on the quality of care for PT2D based on the available literature.

Methods: Systematic review searches were conducted using October 2008 updates of Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library and Embase databases. Additional searches in reference lists and related articles were conducted. Papers were included if published in English, performed as randomized controlled trials, studying diabetes, having general practice as setting and using feedback to GPs on diabetes care. The papers were assessed according to predefined criteria.

Results: Ten studies complied with the inclusion criteria. Feedback improved the care for PT2D, particularly process outcomes such as foot exams, eye exams and Hba1c measurements. Clinical outcomes like lowering of blood pressure, Hba1c and cholesterol levels were seen in few studies. Many process and outcome measures did not improve, while none deteriorated. Meta analysis was unfeasible due to heterogeneity of the studies included. Two studies used electronic feedback.

Conclusion: Based on this review, feedback seems a promising tool for quality improvement in diabetes care, but more research is needed, especially of electronic feedback.

References

    1. Heathfield H, Pitty D, Hanka R. Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ. 1998;316:1959–1961.
    1. Thiru K, Hassey A, Sullivan F. Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care. BMJ. 2003;326:1070. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070.
    1. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD000259.
    1. Kristensen JK, Bak JF, Wittrup I, Lauritzen T. Diabetes prevalence and quality of diabetes care among Lebanese or Turkish immigrants compared to a native Danish population. Primary Care Diabetes. 2007;1:159–165. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2007.07.007.
    1. Dexheimer JW, Talbot TR, Sanders DL, Rosenbloom ST, Aronsky D. Prompting clinicians about preventive care measures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:311–320. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2555.
    1. Götzsche PC. DIRAC Course of Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis. 2007.
    1. Phillips LS, Ziemer DC, Doyle JP, Barnes CS, Kolm P, Branch WT, Caudle JM, Cook CB, Dunbar VG, El-Kebbi IM, et al. An Endocrinologist-Supported Intervention Aimed at Providers Improves Diabetes Management in a Primary Care Site: Improving Primary Care of African Americans with Diabetes (IPCAAD) 7. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2352–2360. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.10.2352.
    1. Frijling BD, Lobo CM, Hulscher ME, Akkermans RP, Braspenning JC, Prins A, Wouden JC van der, Grol RP. Multifaceted support to improve clinical decision making in diabetes care: a randomized controlled trial in general practice. Diabet Med. 2002;19:836–842. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00810.x.
    1. Lobach DF, Hammond WE. Development and evaluation of a Computer-Assisted Management Protocol (CAMP): improved compliance with care guidelines for diabetes mellitus. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:787–791.
    1. Nilasena DS, Lincoln MJ. A computer-generated reminder system improves physician compliance with diabetes preventive care guidelines. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:640–645.
    1. Kenealy T, Arroll B, Petrie KJ. Patients and Computers as Reminders to Screen for Diabetes in Family Practice. Randomized-Controlled Trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20:916–921. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0197.x.
    1. Olivarius NF, Beck-Nielsen H, Andreasen AH, Horder M, Pedersen PA. Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ. 2001;323:970–975. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7319.970.
    1. Glasgow RE, Nutting PA, King DK, Nelson CC, Cutter G, Gaglio B, Rahm AK, Whitesides H, Amthauer H. A Practical Randomized Trial to Improve Diabetes Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2004;19:1167–1174. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30425.x.
    1. Sequist TD, Gandhi TK, Karson AS, Fiskio JM, Bugbee D, Sperling M, Cook EF, Orav EJ, Fairchild DG, Bates DW. A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:431–437. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1788.
    1. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O, Kristensen P, Iversen H, Furuseth K. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in general practice. Evaluation of effort, process, and patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based decision support system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:210–227. doi: 10.1017/S0266462300161185.
    1. Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD, Person SD, Weaver MT, Weissman NW. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:2871–2879. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.22.2871.
    1. Lobach MPMD, Hammond P. Computerized Decision Support Based on a Clinical Practice Guideline Improves Compliance with Care Standards. The American Journal of Medicine. 1997;102:89–98. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(96)00382-8.
    1. Jallinoja P, Absetz P, Kuronen R, Nissinen A, Talja M, Uutela A, Patja K. The dilemma of patient responsibility for lifestyle change: Perceptions among primary care physicians and nurses. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. 2007;25:244–249. doi: 10.1080/02813430701691778.
    1. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad A, Jüni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, Liberati A, Linde K, Penna A. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90538-3.
    1. Langley C, Faulkner A, Watkins C, Gray S, Harvey I. Use of guidelines in primary care – practitioners' perspectives. Fam Pract. 1998;15:105–111. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.105.
    1. Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Poon EG, Karson AS, Murff H, Fairchild DG, Kuperman GJ, Bates DW. Primary care clinician attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:848.
    1. Stead WW, Haynes RB, Fuller S, Friedman CP, Travis LE, Beck JR, Fenichel CH, Chandrasekaran B, Buchanan BG, Abola EE, et al. Designing medical informatics research and library – resource projects to increase what is learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:28–33.
    1. Kristensen JK, Lauritzen T. [Quality indicators of type 2-diabetes monitoring during 2000–2005] Ugeskr Laeger. 2009;171:130–134.
    1. de Grauw WJ, van Gerwen WH, Lisdonk EH van de, Hoogen HJ van den, Bosch WJ van den, van WC. Outcomes of audit-enhanced monitoring of patients with type 2 diabetes. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:459–464.
    1. Valk GD, Renders CM, Kriegsman DM, Newton KM, Twisk JW, van Eijk JT, van der WG, Wagner EH. 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. 2004;39:709–725. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00254.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe