4.3 Article

Four-year impact of a continuous quality improvement effort implemented by a network of diabetes outpatient clinics: the AMD-Annals initiative

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1041-1048

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03055.x

关键词

electronic medical record; outcome measure; process measure; quality of care; use of drugs

资金

  1. Lifescan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Aims We evaluated the impact of a continuous quality improvement effort implemented by a network of Italian diabetes clinics operating in the national healthcare system. Methods This was a controlled before-and-after study involving 95 centres, of which 67 joined the initiative since 2004 (group A) and 18 were first involved in 2007 (group B, control). All centres used electronic medical record systems. Information on quality indicators was extracted for the period 2004-2007. Data were centrally analysed anonymously and results were published annually. Each centre's performance was ranked against the 'best performers'. We compared quality indicators between the two groups of centres over 4 years. Results Over 100 000 Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were evaluated annually. The proportion of patients with glycated haemoglobin levels < 7% increased by 6% in group A (2007-2004 difference) and by 1.3% in group B. The proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol < 100 mg/dl improved by over 10% in both groups. The rate of patients with blood pressure values < 130/85 mmHg increased in group A (+6.4%), but not in group B (-1.4%). The use of insulin increased in group A only (+5.2%), while the use of statins increased by over 20% in both groups. Conclusions A physician-led quality improvement effort, based on the systematic evaluation of routine data, is effective in improving the performance of a large number of diabetes clinics. The small percentage increase in the number of patients at target, if applied to large numbers of patients, would translate into a significant impact on public health.

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

4.3
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