Search

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease contribute significantly to societal and individual impact globally. High‐quality management of these long‐term health conditions is important to prevent deterioration of health, although potentially more complex for patients with intellectual disabilities in residential care. Disease management in this context particularly benefits from complete and accurate recording of disease management. Without complete records, long‐term health conditions are more difficult to track due to the level of uncertainty regarding which clinical examinations have and have not been performed. This study therefore aims to examine the recording routines of quality indicators for disease monitoring for chronically ill patients with intellectual disabilities in Dutch residential care. Methods: This retrospective study utilised medical record data from a large Dutch long‐term care provider. We assessed the occurrence of cardiovascular disease (ICPC‐2 codes K74, K75, K76, K89 and K90), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T90, T90.02) and/or COPD (R91, R95). For adults with intellectual disabilities and long‐term condition, we analysed data entries in an 18‐month period (between July 2020 and December 2021). Observed consultation rates were calculated and presented in median with interquartile range and contrasted against the baseline number of consultations in primary care. Information on recorded quality indicators was presented in frequencies and percentages. Findings: Of the three long‐term conditions investigated, the most common was type 2 diabetes mellitus (8.6%; n = 287), followed by cardiovascular disease (5.8%; n = 195) and COPD (3.0%; n = 101). Of those who received management for their long‐term condition from their contracted GP, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, or COPD had fewer consultations in 2021 than the Dutch baseline. Discussion of lifestyle was often not recorded. Disease monitoring quality indicators were recorded more often but at a lower frequency than expected. Conclusions: Because of the infrequent recording of quality indicators, recording of management of long‐term conditions for patients with intellectual disabilities in long‐term care appears suboptimal. Although this may not directly harm individual patients, it may jeopardise the quality of management of long‐term conditions, as suboptimal recording limits opportunities for evaluation and improvement. Within a broader trend towards data‐driven work methods in healthcare, recording of quality indicators requires attention from practice, research and policy. We should watch over long‐term diseases to help people stay healthy. We run tests, like checking blood pressure. The results are written in their medical records. These tests are like quality checks.We wanted to see if and how these quality checks were used, mostly for people with a learning disability living in care homes who also have heart disease, diabetes, or lung problems.We looked at their medical papers to see if these checks were there. We also looked at how often they saw the doctor.We found that chronically ill people with a learning disability went to the doctor quite often. But not as often as we expected. Also, the checks were not always written down. The talks about their lifestyle with the doctors were not noted very often.This can impact how well doctors care for the health issues of people with learning disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]