4.7 Article

Overall Quality of Care Predicts the Variability of Key Risk Factors for Complications in Type 2 Diabetes: An Observational, Longitudinal Retrospective Study

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 514-519

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1471

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE An association between variability in clinical parameters (HbA(1c), blood pressure, cholesterol, and uric acid) and risk of complications in type 2 diabetes has been reported. In this analysis, we investigated to what extent such variability is associated with overall quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The quality of care summary score (Q-score) represents a validated, overall quality of care indicator ranging between 0 and 40; the higher the score, the better the quality of care provided by the diabetes center. We identified patients with five or more measurements of clinical parameters after the assessment of the Q-score. Multiple linear regression analyses assessed the role of the Q-score in predicting the variability of the different parameters. RESULTS Overall, 273,888 patients were analyzed. The variability of all the parameters systematically increased with decreasing Q-score values. At multivariate linear regression analysis, compared with a Q-score >25, a score <15 was associated with a significantly larger variation in HbA(1c), blood pressure, uric acid, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol and a lower variation in HDL cholesterol. The analysis of standardized beta coefficients show that the Q-score has a larger impact on the variability of HbA(1c) (0.34; P < 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (0.21; P < 0.0001), total cholesterol (0.21; P < 0.0001), and LDL cholesterol (0.20; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The variability of risk factors for diabetic complications is associated with quality of care. Quality of care improvement initiatives should be targeted to increase the achievement of the recommended target while reducing such variability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available