Abstract
Aim
The aim of this review shoud be to map data and to identify quality indicators for good practices for diabetes management and secondary prevention, specifically of type 2 diabetes.
Methods
To achieve this aim we performed the following steps: (i) a literature review on evaluation criteria, (ii) selection of quality criteria and key components for high quality of care, (iii) creation of a checklist to identify the best practice of diabetes management based on the detected criteria.
Results
The literature search about the quality indicators for diabetes care resulted in the following: identifying of key components and quality indicators for structure, process and outcome quality.
Conclusions
The set of quality criteria will be discussed and used to identify the best practice diabetes management programs for secondary prevention of type 2 diabetes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Diabetes mellitus is an important factor in increasing risk for secondary vascular diseases such as cardiovascular, renal, and eye complications (Pathak et al. 2019). Risk factors and outcomes vary across countries, reflecting a mixture of genetic background, societal, and cultural factors, as well as public health politics, in combination with local quality of health care (EUCID 2008).
Effective as well as efficient diabetes management is an essential component to prevent or delay the complications and comorbidities of diabetes mellitus (Rothe et al. 2008). There is evidence available that cardiovascular and diabetes specific complications can be stopped or reduced as a result of good diabetes management (Hunter and Fairfield 1997; Rothe 2010; Schäfer et al. 2010b). The disease management approach to patient care seeks to coordinate resources across the healthcare delivery system. The growing interest in evidence-based medicine and outcomes, and a commitment to integrated care across the primary, secondary, and community care sectors, all contribute to making disease management an attractive idea. A combination of patient education, provider use of practice guidelines, appropriate consultation, and supplies of drugs and ancillary services all come together in the disease management process (Hunter and Fairfield 1997). Disease management views patients as entities experiencing the clinical course of a disease, rather than viewing their care as a series of discrete episodes or as fragmentary encounters with different parts of the healthcare system. It has four parts according to Hunter and Fairfield (1997):
-
1)
a knowledge base (guidelines)
-
2)
an integrated care delivery system without boundaries between medical specialities and institutions
-
3)
a continuous quality improvement process, and
-
4)
patient empowerment.
Nevertheless, a still better way — innovative and patient-centered — to reach good quality of care and to avoid complications also for multimorbid patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is the Chronic Care Model (Coleman et al. 2009; Wagner et al. 2001) based on six core elements:
-
1)
delivery system design (e.g., integrated)
-
2)
organizational support
-
3)
decision support (e.g., based on complex practice guidelines)
-
4)
clinical information system (for longitudinal patient monitoring)
-
5)
self-management support (to enhance patient empowerment), and
-
6)
community resources.
Aim
The aim of this review was to map data and to identify quality indicators for good practices for diabetes management and secondary prevention, specifically of T2DM. Secondary prevention of diabetes relies on early detection of (pre-)diabetes (e.g., through screening) and application of intervention strategies and disease management to prevent the progression of the disease. Therefore, all (primary) preventions of the secondary diseases (e.g., diabetes specific complications and co-morbidities) of T2DM are involved, according to Last (2001). Recently, evaluation criteria have been needed to identify key components of high quality of care (Martirosyan et al. 2010). Therefore, quality criteria were developed by several associations, e.g., by the American Diabetes Association (ADA 2014) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (Rydén et al. 2013).
The key components as results of this review are to identify the important quality indicators and control points for better diabetes management, with the final goal of reducing the risk factors for endpoints, such as high plasma glucose, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia — all components of the metabolic (vascular) syndrome (MVS). The MVS is recognized as an important precondition for both T2DM and cardiovascular diseases. MVS already describes a cluster of risk factors [overweight, elevated/decreased blood lipids, elevated blood pressure, (pre-)diabetes] as well as when detected late or when far progressed — the common presence of different manifest diseases (such as intra-abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, T2DM) (Alberti et al. 2009; Hanefeld et al. 2007; Kwasny et al. 2017).
Methods
With the goal of identifying the appropriate disease management programs for the European Union in the future, we developed the quality criteria in several steps:
-
1)
a literature review on evaluation criteria
-
2)
selection of quality criteria and key components for high quality of care
-
3)
creation of a checklist to identify the best practice of diabetes management in Europe based on the detected criteria.
We performed a literature search withh regard to the quality indicators, and were subsequently able to find out the key components for structure, process, and outcome quality of diabetes care.
MEDLINE was searched via PubMed using the following search strategy:
[(structure OR process OR outcome) AND (quality indicators OR key components)] AND (type 2 diabetes).
We applied the following PubMed limits in order to increase the specificity of our search: (“humans”[MeSH Terms]).
Additionally, we scanned congress proceedings and reference lists of relevant articles, and searched our own archive for further potentially relevant publications, not identified through the electronic search.
Subsequently, we extracted quality indicators for structure, process, and outcome quality. These quality indicators and key elements should become the scientific basis for identifying the best practice for diabetes management and secondary prevention.
Results
Literature review
To identify quality criteria and key components for high-quality care for people with T2DM, in total 125 publications were searched (see Figure 1). Quality criteria for high-quality care were finally selected from 33 essential publications.
Selection of the quality criteria and key components
After the search strategy, inclusive limitations and screening of abstracts and papers, key components for quality on structure (Greenhalgh 1994; Hunter and Fairfield 1997; Rijken et al. 2012; Rothe 2010; Rothe et al. 2008) (see Table 1), process (Bodicoat et al. 2014; Burgers 2010; Coppell et al. 2011; Correa-de-Araujo et al. 2006; Doubova et al. 2013; Gandjour et al. 2002; Grintsova et al. 2014; Guthrie et al. 2003; Guthrie et al. 2005; Pedersen and Jacobsen 2011; Schulze et al. 2009) (see Table 2) and outcome-level (Bodicoat et al. 2014; Elissen et al. 2012; Fung et al. 2012; Grintsova et al. 2014; Guthrie et al. 2003; Hermans et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2010; Marley et al. 2012; Nobels et al. 2011; Pajunen et al. 2010b; Schäfer et al. 2010a; Schulze et al. 2009; Schunk et al. 2011; Sidorenkov et al. 2013a; b; Voorham et al. 2008; Wee et al. 2008) were identified and suggested.
Quality of life is also important for the outcome of diabetes care (Sundaram et al. 2007; Wens et al. 2007).
Intermediate outcome indicators (see Table 3) can be measured easily, were often called “surrogate parameters” and are in concordance to the therapeutic targets for patients with DMT2 and with MVS.
Long term outcome indicators (see Table 4) (Bodicoat et al. 2014; Guthrie et al. 2005; Lix et al. 2013; Lopez-Lopez and Gutierrez-Soria, 2012; Sidorenkov et al. 2013a; Wens et al. 2007) are the so called “endpoints” of the natural history as well as of the clinical course of the disease.
Finally, a checklist for identifying the best practice of diabetes management was created (see Table 5).
Conclusions
Several projects aiming to enhance reporting related to diabetes care quality have been already conducted in the past. For example, the European Core Indicators for Diabetes Mellitus (EUCID) (EUCID 2008) project developed 27 indicators and demonstrated the feasibility of data collection in different EU countries and future member states. Some consortia have developed quality indicators specifically for clinical diabetes care. The EUBIROD network, for example, has been created for continuous monitoring of quality of care through the production of series of indicators with a special methodology and to build up a common European infrastructure for standardized information exchange in diabetes care, for the purpose of monitoring, updating, and disseminating evidence on the application and clinical effectiveness of best practice guidelines on a regular basis (Benedetti et al. 2009).
The published quality indicators so far are quite different for structure quality, but quite similar for process and outcome quality. Comparisons between countries would be difficult where different standards are used in guidelines, as well as for measurements. Therefore, common statements/recommendations of ADA together with EASD have been published (Inzucchi et al. 2012; Rydén et al. 2013). Unified quality standards are necessary for a systematic evaluation and reporting of diabetes management programs (Pajunen et al. 2010a; Willmeroth et al. 2019). Nevertheless, it is unclear if the needs of people with diabetes are finally met. People with diabetes have to deal with many tasks that are associated with a chronic disease. Access to health care service plays a major role in primary diabetes care. Problems can result from perceived and real barriers, and lead to poorer health outcomes (Zgibor and Songer 2001). Therefore, in addition to the need of identifying the best programs, patient needs and barriers should be also taken in consideration in the context of the programs (Kuske et al. 2013; Rothe 2010).
Nevertheless, it is unknown up to now what the best practice — for the best outcome — is. The collected and selected set of quality criteria will be used to identify best-practice diabetes management programs on secondary prevention of T2DM throughout EU member states in the future. The results will be used; how successful intervention strategies could be transferred and implemented elsewhere, and how to try to influence the policies towards improvement of diabetes care and management.
Therefore, in a further step we will prepare a systematic review about existing diabetes management programs in Europe based on these selected quality criteria and created checklist.
References
ADA (2014) Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes Care 37(Suppl.1):S14–S80. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-S014
Alberti KG et al (2009) Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the nternational Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation 120:1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192644
Benedetti MM et al. (2009) The BIRO Consortium. Best information through regional outcomes: a shared European diabetes information system for policy and practice. University of Perugia, Perugia
Bodicoat DH et al. (2014) The impact of a programme to improve quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes on hard to reach groups: The GEDAPS study. Prim Care Diabetes 9(3):211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2014.08.001
Burgers JS (2010) Measuring intensification of therapy: a new indicator for quality of chronic care. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 154:A1602 (Original in Dutch)
Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH (2009) Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Aff (Millwood) 28:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.75
Coppell KJ, Anderson K, Williams SM, Lamb C, Farmer VL, Mann JI (2011) The quality of diabetes care: a comparison between patients enrolled and not enrolled on a regional diabetes register. Prim Care Diabetes 5:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2010.10.005
Correa-de-Araujo R, McDermott K, Moy E (2006) Gender differences across racial and ethnic groups in the quality of care for diabetes. Women's Health Issues 16:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2005.08.003
Doubova SV, Mino-Leon D, Perez-Cuevas R (2013) Linking quality of healthcare and health-related quality of life of patients with type 2 diabetes: an evaluative study in Mexican family practice. Int J Qual Health Care 25:664–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt062
Elissen AM, Duimel-Peeters IG, Spreeuwenberg C, Spreeuwenberg M, Vrijhoef HJ (2012) Toward tailored disease management for type 2 diabetes. Am J Manag Care 18:619–630
EUCID (2008) Final report: European core indicators in diabetes project. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2005/action1/docs/action1_2005_frep_11_en.pdf
Fung CS et al (2012) Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary risk factor assessment and management programme (RAMP) for diabetic patients. BMC Fam Pract 13:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-116
Gandjour A, Kleinschmit F, Lauterbach KW (2002) European comparison of costs and quality in the prevention of secondary complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus (2000-2001). Diabet Med 19:594–601
Greenhalgh PM (1994) Shared care for diabetes. A systematic review. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract 67:i-viii, 1–35
Grintsova O, Maier W, Mielck A (2014) Inequalities in health care among patients with type 2 diabetes by individual socio-economic status (SES) and regional deprivation: a systematic literature review. Int J Equity Health 13:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-13-43
Guthrie B, Emslie-Smith A, Morris A, Fahey T, Sullivan F (2003) Quality measurement of care for people with type 2 diabetes in Tayside, Scotland: implications for the new UK general practice contract. British J Gen Pract 53:709–713
Guthrie B, Love T, Fahey T, Morris A, Sullivan F (2005) Control, compare and communicate: designing control charts to summarise efficiently data from multiple quality indicators. Qual Safl Health Care 14:450–454. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.014456
Hanefeld M et al. (2007) Practical Guideline Metabolic Vascular Syndrome (MVS). Specialized committee on diabetes in Saxony (Germany), Dresden
Hermans MP, Brotons C, Elisaf M, Michel G, Muls E, Nobels F (2013) Optimal type 2 diabetes mellitus management: the randomised controlled OPTIMISE benchmarking study: baseline results from six European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol 20:1095–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312449414
Hunter DJ, Fairfield G (1997) Managed care: disease management. BMJ 315:50–53
Inzucchi SE et al (2012) Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 35:1364–1379. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0413
Kuske S, Maass C, Weingartner V, Pöhlmann S, Schrappe M (2013) Patient-safety indicators. A systematic review, criteria-based characterization and prioritization. J Public Health 21:201–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-012-0532-9
Kwasny C, Manuwald U, Kugler J, Rothe U (2017) Systematic review of the epidemiology and natural history of the metabolic vascular syndrome and its coincidence with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases in different European countries. Horm Metab Res 50(3):201–208 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-122395
Last JM (2001) A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Liu X, Miller YD, Burton NW, Brown WJ (2010) A preliminary study of the effects of Tai chi and Qigong medical exercise on indicators of metabolic syndrome, glycaemic control, health-related quality of life, and psychological health in adults with elevated blood glucose. Br J Sports Med 44:704–709. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.051144
Lix LM, Quail J, Fadahunsi O, Teare GF (2013) Predictive performance of comorbidity measures in administrative databases for diabetes cohorts. BMC Health Serv Res 13:340. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-340
Lopez-Lopez E, Gutierrez-Soria D, Idrovo AJ (2012) Evaluation of a diabetes care program using the effective coverage framework. Int J Qual Health Care 24:619–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzs056
Marley JV, Nelson C, O'Donnell V, Atkinson D (2012) Quality indicators of diabetes care: an example of remote-area aboriginal primary health care over 10 years. Med J Aust 197:404–408
Martirosyan L, Arah OA, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Braspenning J, Denig P (2010) Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators. BMC Health Serv Res 10:137. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-137
Nobels F, Debacker N, Brotons C, Elisaf M, Hermans MP, Michel G, Muls E (2011) Study rationale and design of OPTIMISE, a randomised controlled trial on the effect of benchmarking on quality of care in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol 10:82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2840-10-82
Pajunen P, Landgraf R, Muylle F, Neumann A, Lindström J, Schwarz P, Peltonen M (2010) Quality and outcome indicators for prevention of type 2 diabetes In Europe — IMAGE. Report 14/2010. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki
Pajunen P et al (2010b) Quality indicators for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe—IMAGE. Horm Metab Res 42(Suppl 1):S56–S63. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1240976
Pathak V, Pathak NM, O'Neill CL, Guduric-Fuchs J, Medina RJ (2019) Therapies for type 1 diabetes: current scenario and future perspectives. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes 12:1179551419844521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1179551419844521
Pedersen ML, Jacobsen JL (2011) Improvement of diabetes care in a small but geographically widely spread population in Greenland. Effects of a national diabetes care programme. Diabet Med 28:1425–1432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03337.x
Rijken M, Bekkema N, Boeckxstaens P, Schellevis FG, De Maeseneer JM, Groenewegen PP (2012) Chronic disease management programmes: an adequate response to patients' needs? Health Expect 17(5):608–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00786.x
Rothe U (2010) Zur Effektivität und effizienz der integrierten Versorgung am Beispiel Diabetes -ein Beitrag zur Versorgungsforschung. Shaker Verlag, Aachen
Rothe U et al (2008) 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. Diabetes Care 31:863–868. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-0858
Rydén L et al (2013) ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD: the Task Force on Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and developed in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eu Heart J 34:3035–3087. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht108
Schäfer I et al (2010a) The disease management program for type 2 diabetes in Germany enhances process quality of diabetes care — a follow-up survey of patient's experiences. BMC Health Serv Res 10:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-55
Schäfer I et al (2010b) Selection effects may account for better outcomes of the German disease management program for type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res 10:351. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-351
Schulze J et al. (2009) Practice Guideline on Diabetes mellitus Type 2 [Praxis-Leitlinie Diabetes mellitus Typ 2]. Specialized committee on diabetes in Saxony (Germany), Dresden
Schunk M, Stark R, Reitmeir P, Rathmann W, Meisinger C, Holle R (2011) Improvements in type 2 diabetes care? Pooled analysis of survey data in southern Germany (KORA) from 1999–2008. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 54:1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-011-1364-4
Sidorenkov G, Voorham J, de Zeeuw D, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P (2013a) Do treatment quality indicators predict cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes? PLoS One 8:e78821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078821
Sidorenkov G, Voorham J, de Zeeuw D, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P (2013b) Treatment quality indicators predict short-term outcomes in patients with diabetes: a prospective cohort study using the GIANTT database. BMJ Qual Saf 22:339–347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001203
Sundaram M, Kavookjian J, Patrick JH, Miller LA, Madhavan SS, Scott VG (2007) Quality of life, health status and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients. Qual Life Res 16:165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9105-0
Voorham J, Denig P, Wolffenbuttel BH, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM (2008) Cross-sectional versus sequential quality indicators of risk factor management in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care 46:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31815b9da0
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A (2001) Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff (Millwood) 20:64–78
Wee SL, Tan CG, Ng HS, Su S, Tai VU, Flores JV, Khoo DH (2008) Diabetes outcomes in specialist and general practitioner settings in Singapore: challenges of right-siting. Ann Acad Med Singapore 37:929–935
Wens J, Dirven K, Mathieu C, Paulus D, Van Royen P (2007) Quality indicators for type-2 diabetes care in practice guidelines: an example from six European countries. Prim Care Diabetes 1:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2006.07.001
Willmeroth T, Wesselborg B, Kuske S (2019) Implementation outcomes and indicators as a new challenge in health services research: a systematic scoping review. Inquiry 56:46958019861257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958019861257
Zgibor JC, Songer TJ (2001) External barriers to diabetes care: addressing personal and health systems issues. Diabetes Spectrum 14:23–28. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.14.1.23
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The paper meets ethical standards. An ethical assessment is not necessary since this is only an (literature) review without any patient data.
Conflict of interest
There are no potential conflicts of interest or any financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately bias conduct and findings of this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rothe, U., Manuwald, U., Kugler, J. et al. Quality criteria/key components for high quality of diabetes management to avoid diabetes-related complications. J Public Health (Berl.) 29, 1235–1241 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01227-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01227-w