4.7 Article

Evaluation of a diabetes management system based on practice guidelines, integrated care, and continuous quality management in a federal state of Germany -: A population-based approach to health care research

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 863-868

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0858

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The aim of this study was to evaluate the Saxon Diabetes Management Program (SDMP), which is based on integrated practice guidelines, shared care, and integrated quality management. The SDMP was implemented into diabetes contracts between health insurance providers, general practitioners (GPs), and diabetes specialized practitioners (DSPs) unified in the Saxon association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The evaluation of the SDMP in Germany represents a real-world Study by using clinical data collected from participating physician,. Between 2000 and 2002 all DSPs and about 75% of the GPs in Saxony participated. Finally, 291,771 patients were included in the SDMP. Cross-sectional data were evaluated at the beginning of 2000 (group AI) and at the end of 2002 (group A2). A subcohort of 105,204 patients was followed over a period of 3 years (group B). RESULTS - The statewide implementation of the SDMP resulted in a change in therapeutic practice and in better cooperation. The median AlC at the time of referral to DSPs decreased from 8.5 to 7.5%, and so did the overall mean. At the end, 78 and 61% of group B achieved the targets for AlC and blood pressure, respectively, recommended by the guidelines compared with 69 and 50% at baseline. Patients with poorly controlled diabetes benefited the most. Preexisting regional differences were aligned. CONCLUSIONS - integrated care disease management with practicable integrated quality management including collaboration between GPs and specialist services is a significant innovation in chronic care management and an efficient way to improve diabetes care continuously.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据