Search

AIMS: To assess the planned diabetes care for the coming year and its associated factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have a person-centered annual consultation.METHODS: Implementation study of a new consultation model in 47 general practices (primary care) and 6 outpatient clinics (secondary care); 1200 patients from primary and 166 from secondary care participated. Data collection took place between November 2015 and February 2017. Outcomes: preferred monitoring frequency; referral to other health care provider(s); medication change. One measurement at the end of the consultation. We performed logistic regression analyses. Differences between primary and secondary care were analyzed.RESULTS: Many patients arranged a monitoring frequency <4 times per year (general practices 19.5%, outpatient clinics 40%, p < .001). Type of provider (physician/nurse, OR 3.83, p < .001), baseline HbA1c (OR 1.02, p = .017), glucose lowering medication; and setting treatment goals (OR .65, p = .048) were associated with the chosen frequency. Independently associated with a referral were age (OR .99, p = .039), baseline glucose lowering medication and patients' goal setting (OR 1.52, p = .016). Medication change was associated with type of provider, baseline HbA1c, blood glucose lowering medication, quality of life (OR .80, p = .037) and setting treatment goals (OR 2.64, p = .001).CONCLUSIONS: Not only disease but also person related factors, especially setting treatment goals, are independently associated with planned care use in person-centered diabetes care.

Huberta E Hart,1,2,* Kim Ditzel,1,* Guy E Rutten,1 Esther de Groot,1 Samuel Seidu,3 Kamlesh Khunti,3 Rimke C Vos1,4 1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2Leidsche Rijn Julius Health Centers, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 3Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK; 4Department of Public Health and Primary Care/lumc-Campus the Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Huberta E HartJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Erasmuslaan 68, Zeist 3707 ZE, The NetherlandsTel +31 6 1695 0844Email h.e.hart@umcutrecht.nlAim: To evaluate if, one year after notification of possible overtreatment, diabetes care providers de-intensified glucose-lowering medications and to gain insight into the opinions and beliefs of both care providers and patients regarding de-intensification.Methods: Mixed methods using routine care data from five health-care centres in the Netherlands. Patient characteristics and medication prescription of patients, previously identified as possibly over-treated, were extracted from patients’ medical records. Opinions of care providers were obtained through interviews. Patients received questionnaires about their diabetes treatment and were asked to participate in focus groups.Results: A total of 64 elderly patients with type 2 diabetes were previously identified as possibly over-treated and included; 57.8% male, median age 75 years (IQR=72–82), median diabetes duration 12 years (IQR=8–18). De-intensification was implemented in more than half (n=36) of them. Care providers preferred person-centred care above just setting general HbA1c target values, considering patient characteristics (such as comorbidity) and patient’s preference. Patients valued glucos

BackgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cognitive impairment which can lead to impaired diabetes self-management and an increased risk of diabetes-related complications. Routine screening for cognitive impairment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes is therefore increasingly advocated. The aim of this study is to investigate whether people with type 2 diabetes and screen-detected cognitive impairment use acute health care services more often than patients not suspected of cognitive impairment.MethodsPeople with type 2 diabetes70years were screened for cognitive impairment in primary care. Diagnoses in screen positives were established at a memory clinic. Information about acute health care use was collected for 2years prior to and 2years after screening and compared to screen negatives.Results154 participants (38% female, mean age 76.75.2years, diabetes duration 8.7 +/- 8.2years) were included, 37 patients with cognitive impairment, 117 screen negatives. A higher percentage of participants with cognitive impairment compared to screen negative patients used acute health care services; this difference was significant for general practitioner's out of hours services (56% versus 34% used this service over 4years, p=0.02). The mean number of acute health care visits was also higher in those with cognitive impairment than in screen negatives (2.2 +/- 2.8 versus 1.4 +/- 2.2 visits in 4years, p

OBJECTIVE: We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed.RESULTS: Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients.