Introduction
Methods
Design
Participants
Recruitment of sites
Recruitment of patients
Sample size
Quality improvement intervention
Preparation phase |
Context and Topic selection
|
---|---|
In the Netherlands, access to care is easily available and almost fully reimbursable. Although the care for people with diabetes type 2 was mainly concentrated in primary care in the last decades, people with diabetes now receive care in primary, secondary or tertiary level care settings, The integrated care strategy intends to develop a model of care that will provide an appropriate structure to deliver the full range of health, personal, and social services and initiatives to improve the organization, management, and integration or coordination of primary generalist care and secondary specialist care services for diabetes (including diabetes specialist nurses, dieticians, podiatrists, and specialist support). Guidelines on care and prevention are amply available but not fully implemented. As part of an alliance between the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the College of Health Insurances to improve chronic care in an integrated care setting, a national quality improvement collaborative (QIC) based on the Breakthrough Series http://www.ihi.org was set up to encourage high quality in integrated diabetes care in the Netherlands. This voluntary quality improvement strategy was designed to bring together and support multiprofessional diabetes teams from primary care and outpatient hospital clinics. | |
Expert meeting
| |
In the preparation phase, an expert meeting of 30 national diabetes experts including general practitioners, diabetologists, specialized diabetes nurses, dieticians, podiatrists, members of the Dutch Diabetes Federation, and other patient organizations was organized. The purpose was to gain insight into current diabetes care barriers and facilitators. The experts listed 12 barriers and facilitators on the patient, professional, and organizational levels. | |
Expert panel and change concepts
| |
Following the expert meeting, an expert panel representing five national diabetes experts and two quality improvement experts was installed to facilitate and support the participating provider teams. The expert panel prepared a package of ideas (change concepts) for closing the gap between best and actual practice. The package was based on national and international diabetes guidelines, field surveys, personal experience, and the barriers and facilitators mentioned in the expert meeting. | |
Recruitment of participants
|
Letters of invitation
|
In 2004, letters of invitation were sent to invite diabetes provider teams in outpatient hospital clinics and general practices nationwide to participate in a diabetes QIC on in 2005. | |
Invitational meeting
| |
In addition, two invitational meetings were organized to inform teams about the goals and structure of the project. The participating teams each had to pay a fee of €23.750 Euro to cover project management costs. | |
Start
|
Kick-off
|
Before the kick-off meeting, the participating multidisciplinary provider teams were asked to collect some baseline data and to describe the current diabetes practice to identify 'performance gaps' in their practice. In the national kick-off meeting, the teams were provided with materials and information (package of change). The kick-off session provided information about the change package and quality improvement techniques. The topics included setting aims, the use of measurement and small, incremental tests of change. | |
Execution phase
|
Learning Sessions
|
The teams attended three learning sessions about the change package, quality improvement methods, and reporting their experiences, changes, and results for their targets. | |
Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles
| |
Between meetings, the team members recruited other providers from their respective organizations (participating hospitals and general practices) to implement selected changes and measure progress in their own organizations. They used a PDSA change testing method to plan, implement, and evaluate many small changes in quick succession (the rapid cycle improvement method). The expert panel supported the teams by means site visits, conference calls, e-mail 'listserv' discussion groups, and feedback. |
Effect parameters
Patient outcomes (nine effect parameters)
Professional performance (19 effect parameters)
Structural aspects of chronic care management (four effect parameters)
Statistical analysis
Site and patient characteristics at baseline | Intervention Group | Control Group |
---|---|---|
Site characteristics
| ||
Number of sites participating in QIC | 7 | 0 |
Number of sites participating in evaluation study | 6 | 9 |
Number of hospitals | 5 | 8 |
Number of general practices | 12 | 25 |
Number of patients | 607 | 1254 |
Age in years (SD)
|
66 (12.1)
|
67 (11.2)
|
Gender, percentage of men
|
54.8
|
52.2
|
Years since diagnosis (SD)
|
13.5 (10.1)
|
13.3 (9.1)
|
Complications (in percentages)
| ||
History of: Foot ulcer
|
11.6
|
13.4
|
Cardiovascular disease
|
22.3
|
23.3
|
Stroke
|
6.5
|
8.1
|
Renal disease
|
5.9
|
5.5
|
Retinopathy
|
10.2
|
9.1
|
Patient characteristics (survey n = 1,630) |
Intermediate outcome indicators | Baseline | Short term (one year follow up) | Long term (two years follow up) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Medical record ( n = 1,861) | Intervention | (SD) | Control | (SD) | Intervention | (SD) | Control | (SD) | Intervention | (SD) | Control | (SD) |
Mean HbA1C mmol/l (SD) | 7.5 | (1.3) | 7.5 | (1.2) | 7.3 | (1.2) | 7.4 | (1.2) | 7.2 | (1.2) | 7.2 | (1.2) |
Mean systolic blood pressure mm Hg (SD) | 143.3 | (19.2) | 143.4 | (17.2) | 141.6 | (18.1) | 141.6 | (16.5) |
139.3
| (17.4) |
141.8*
| (16.5) |
Mean diastolic blood pressure mm Hg (SD) | 80.4 | (8.8) | 80.2 | (8.9) | 79.3 | (8.8) | 78.9 | (8.6) | 78.5 | (9.1) | 78.7 | (8.6) |
Mean cholesterol | 4.9 | (0.9) | 4.9 | (1.1) | 4.6 | (0.9) | 4.6 | (0.9) | 4.4 | (0.9) | 4.5 | (0.9) |
Mean HDL | 1.3 | (0.4) | 1.3 | (0.4) | 1.3 | (0.4) | 1.3 | (0.4) |
1.4
| (0.4) |
1.3**
| (0.4) |
Mean LDL | 2.8 | (0.9) | 2.9 | (0.9) | 2.7 | (0.9) | 2.6 | (2.0) | 2.5 | (0.8) | 2.6 | (2.0) |
Mean BMI | 29.7 | (5.6) | 29.6 | (4.9) | 29.7 | (5.3) | 29.5 | (4.9) | 29.9 | (5.5) | 29.7 | (4.9) |
Mean triglycerides | 1.9 | (1.1) | 1.9 | (1.3) | 1.8 | (1.1) | 1.8 | (1.1) | 1.7 | (1.1) | 1.8 | (1.1) |
Nonsmokers (in percentages) | 83.5 | 83.3 | 84.5 | 84.9 | 83.7 | 85.7 |
Intermediate outcome indicators (percentage of patients) | Baseline | Short term (one year follow up) | Long term (two years follow up) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | |
Medical record (
n
= 1,861)
| ||||||
HbA1c checked within 12 months |
82.4
|
91.5*
| 95.7 | 95.4 | 93.7 | 93.2 |
Blood pressure checked within 12 months |
79.4
|
89.7***
| 89.9 | 93.1 | 88.6 | 91.1 |
Cholesterol checked within 12 months | 69.4 | 80.1 | 83.2 | 84.3 | 82.2 | 83.4 |
Creatinine test within 12 months | 72.9 | 82.1 | 87.8 | 86.9 | 85.5 | 86.8 |
Urine test (microalbuminuria) within 12 months | 37.9 | 49.9 | 45.1 | 56.6 | 45.3 | 61.0 |
Weighed within12 months | 68.7 | 78.7 | 81.2 | 84.8 | 74.5 | 83.5 |
Body mass index calculated within 12 months | 22.7 | 33.4 | 43.7 | 39.1 | 41.8 | 43.7 |
Survey (n = 1,630)
| ||||||
Eye examination within 12 months |
85.2
|
90.9*
| 88.3 | 90.8 | 90.1 | 92.5 |
Foot examination within 12 months | 77.5 | 77.8 | 82.7 | 82.7 | 83.0 | 85.2 |
Visit to dietician (survey) within 12 months |
29.5
|
23.8*
| 15.8 | 12.8 |
17.8
|
9.9**
|
Visit to podotherapist (survey) within12 months | 27.7 | 26.8 | 20.6 | 26.8 | 28.0 | 27.3 |
Received advice to self-monitor blood glucuose | 72.4 | 66.3 | 69.7 | 64.8 | 68.7 | 65.7 |
Received instruction to monitor blood glucose | 74.2 | 68.2 |
59.5
|
52.4*
|
61.7
|
55.8*
|
Received advice to examine feet | 76.4 | 72.1 |
77.2
|
68.5*
|
75.2
|
69.4*
|
Received instruction to examine feet | 64.6 | 59.2 |
65.9
|
56.3*
|
66.0
|
59.5*
|
Received advice not to gain weight | 88.4 | 89.1 | 70.9 | 71.0 | 68.4 | 67.1 |
Received advice for healthful diet | 94.9 | 93.7 | 75.1 | 71.6 | 72.4 | 67.6 |
Received advice for regular exercise | 93.6 | 91.1 | 82.9 | 79.6 | 78.6 | 76.5 |
Received advice to stop smoking | 74.6 | 75.7 | 77.9 | 73.0 | 64.6 | 65.8 |
Results
Study sites and patients
Patient outcomes
Professional performance
Structural aspects of chronic care management
Systems of care n = 35 clinics and practices | Baseline | Short term (one year follow up) | Long term (two years follow up) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (survey)
|
Intervention
|
(SD)
|
Control
|
(SD)
|
Intervention
|
(SD)
|
Control
|
(SD)
|
Intervention
|
(SD)
|
Control
|
(SD)
|
Self-management support | 6.0 | (2.1) | 6.9 | (2.3) |
7.0
| (2.3) |
6.4*
| (2.2) | 6.4 | (2.2) | 6.2 | (2.2) |
Decision support | 6.8 | (2.1) | 7.2 | (2.1) | 7.7 | (2.2) | 6.7 | (1.9) |
7.1
| (1.6) |
6.4**
| (2.0) |
Delivery system design | 7.1 | (2.3) | 7.8 | (1.9) | 7.5 | (2.1) | 7.8 | (1.7) | 7.4 | (1.2) | 8.0 | (1.7) |
Clinical information systems | 6.6 | (2.6) | 6.4 | (2.1) | 6.4 | (1.9) | 6.1 | (1.8) | 7.0 | (1.8) | 6.7 | (2.1) |
Total mean | 6.7 | (2.1) | 7.2 | (1.8) | 7.2 | (1.9) | 6.8 | (1.7) | 7.0 | (1.4) | 6.8 | (1.8) |
Total median | 7.0 | (2.5) | 7.3 | (2.1) | 7.7 | (2.5) | 7.0 | (1.9) | 7.3 | (1.6) | 7.1 | (2.1) |