Interaction between diabetic patients, their general practitioners and a hospital diabetic clinic

Empirical treatment of tuberculosis: TB or not TB?

Of the 8.6 million new cases of tuberculosis (TB) that occur globally each year, a quarter occur in India. We describe the case of a 38-year-old Indian woman who presented with symptoms of hepatitis after being treated empirically with anti-TB therapy for five months. The patient was suspected to have TB after having recurrent episodes of coughing which would improve briefly before her respiratory symptoms returned, which led to her being treated at various healthcare clinics and hospitals. We highlight the challenges the patient faced due to the lack of centralised medical records which would have prevented unnecessary investigations and treatment.

Continuity of care in diabetes: to whom does it matter?

The Australian health care system allows patients to move around to seek medical treatment. This may impact negatively on continuity of care. To determine factors associated with continuity of care for persons with diabetes, the profiles of 479 patients attending the Diabetes Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were examined. The majority of patients (87.7%) attended only one general practitioner and had been under the care of the referring doctor for a median of 6.2 years. These patients were older (P=0.02), but were comparable with those attending multiple doctors in terms of their type, duration and treatment of diabetes as well as their clinical and complication profile. There was also a relationship between age and the length of time under the care of the referring doctor (P=0.0002). The HbA(1c), lipid, blood pressure and treatment profiles of patients attending the referring doctor short, medium or long-term were comparable. However, there was an upward trend in the proportion of patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease or any complication of diabetes with each incremental increase in length of time under the referring doctor. Appropriately, patients seek continuity of care as they age and their health needs become more complex.

Diabetes management: shared care or shared neglect

Shared care is increasingly being advocated as a way of managing patients with diabetes. While this approach has been supported by clinical trials, the success of shared care in 'real life' is not well established. If health care professionals leave undone what they think is done by others, shared care can become neglected care. Follow up of 200 'shared care' patients who had been referred to the Royal Prince Alfred Diabetes Centre, Sydney, Australia on two or more occasions between October 1995 and September 1998 showed that the majority of specialist recommendations regarding metabolic control (76%), referral to an ophthalmologist (73%) and blood pressure treatment (76%) had been implemented by the primary care physician; however, they were less likely to implement recommendations regarding lipid treatment (55%). The median HbA1c (7.6% vs. 8.4%; P = 0.04), cholesterol (5.6 vs. 6.8 mmol/l; P = 0.0005) and triglyceride (2.0 vs. 2.8 mmol/l; P = 0.05) levels for patients in whom recommendations had been implemented were significantly lower at the time of second referral. Doctors registered with the Diabetes Shared Care Programme and those who wrote longer letters were more likely to implement recommendations than their counterparts (87.2%, versus 70.9%; chi2 = 4.12, 1 df; P = 0.04 and 56 words (inter-quartile range (IQR): 36-71) versus 45 words (IQR: 23-59); P = 0.02, respectively). It therefore appears that diabetes care can be well provided by a shared care approach. However, further monitoring of different shared care models is warranted.

Shared care for diabetes: supporting communication between primary and secondary care

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects on information exchange of electronic communication between physicians co-treating diabetic patients.

DESIGN

Comparison of traditional paper-based communication for reporting and electronic communication.

SETTING

General practitioners and an internal medicine outpatient clinic of an urban public hospital.

SUBJECTS

A total of 275 diabetic patients, and the 32 general practitioners and one internal medicine consultant who cared for them.

INTERVENTION

An electronic communication network, linking up the computer-based patient records of the physicians, thus enabling electronic data interchange.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of letters sent and received per year by the general practitioners, the number of diabetes-related parameters (e.g. results of laboratory tests) in the patient records, and HBA1C levels.

RESULTS

INTERVENTION GPs received more messages per year (1.6 per patient) than control GPs (0.5 per patient, P<0.05). Significant higher availability (P<0.05) was achieved for data on HBA1C levels, fructosamine levels, blood pressure measurements, cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels and weight measurements. INTERVENTION patients showed a slight but significant decrease of HBA1C levels in the second semester of 1994 (from 7.0 to 6.8, P = 0.03), control patients also showed a slightly decreased group mean, but this change was not significant (from 6.6 to 6.5, P = 0.52). The magnitudes of these mean differences, however, were not significantly different (intervention group: 0.21; control group: 0.12, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

The electronic communication network for exchanging consultation outcomes significantly increased frequency of communication and the availability of data to the general practitioner on diagnostic procedures performed in the hospital, thus providing more complete information about the care that patients are receiving. A large-scale experiment over a longer period of time is needed to assess the effects of improved communication on quality of care.

If the referral fits: bridging the gap between patient and referrer requirements in a tertiary referral unit

OBJECTIVE

We examined the reasons for which doctors refer and patients request referral to our tertiary Mood Disorders Unit (MDU), focussing on congruence and 'fit', and the potential for more efficient use of referral resources.

METHOD

A postal survey of patients (n = 265 or 83% responders) and referrers (n = 156 or 94% responders) sought views regarding referral and service components. Ratings from 156 matched referrer-patient dyads were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, referrers and patients were satisfied with the MDU. There was disparity between what referrers sought and what patients thought were the reasons for referral, and different perceptions of the value of interventions and the amount of improvement. Congruent matched referrer-patient judgements of patient outcome were more likely to correspond with objective clinician ratings than discordant ratings. Satisfaction with MDU contact or intervention was not necessarily linked to improvement; better management of chronic depression was also valued. Referrer and patient responses to open-ended questions highlighted beneficial ingredients of referral.

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable lack of fit between referrers' and patients' experience of the referral. Better communication between referrer and patients can clarify the purpose of referral and possibly lead to increased compliance with medical regimens.

Management of type 2 diabetes in Western Australian metropolitan general practice

The purpose of this study was: (1) to record GP opinions, practices and outcomes for the care of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM2), (2) compare practice facilities and process of care with a criterion of recommended competent care and (3) determine if there were any differences between vocationally registered and non-vocationally registered GPs. A random sample of 204 metropolitan doctors from 124 practices was selected and an audit performed on 467 of their patient records. GPs pursued good blood sugar control and advocated lifestyle changes before hypoglycaemic drugs. Over 80% regard uncomplicated DM2 as a condition for general practice management. However, only 15% conducted an annual diabetes check, 9% had a diabetic register, 6% a diabetic recall system and 8% used a diabetic health care checklist for monitoring their patients. The most commonly recorded processes of medical audit in the previous 12 months were: blood pressure (94%), duration of diabetes (72%), blood glucose (70%), diet (66%), body weight (56%), HBA1c (52%) and ophthalmoscopy (50%). The least commonly recorded processes of care were body mass index (5%), inspection of the feet (18%), enquiries about vaginitis or impotence (23%). The amount of exercise, alcohol and tobacco was recorded in only 34% of records. Hypoglycaemic drugs were used appropriately but the most commonly used drugs for treating hypertension in DM2 patients were thiazide diuretics and beta-blockers. Vocationally registered (VR) doctors had better records, higher process of care scores and more were willing to participate in the study than non-vocationally registered (NVR) doctors. However, there was no difference in metabolic control between patients from either group. The use of a Diabetic Health Care Checklist would improve diabetes care especially in the search for early complications and in the recording of HBA1c and other metabolic parameters. The drugs commonly used to control hypertension can have adverse effects on glucose and lipid metabolism and should be replaced with glucose and lipid neutral drugs.

Sharing the care of diabetic patients between hospital and general practitioners: does it work?

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare three forms of diabetes follow-up: (1) general practitioner care, (2) a system of care shared between the general practitioner (GP) and clinic and (3) conventional clinic care. Two hundred and six diabetic patients without significant diabetes-related or other medical complications were randomized to one of these follow-up systems. Metabolic control and blood pressure improved significantly and equally in all three groups (p < 0.05). The shared care group performed as well as or better than either of the other two groups in all other outcome measures. In particular, final attendance rates were 72% for shared care compared with only 35% for GP care and 53% for clinic care. Data collection rates for shared care were comparable with the clinic group for random blood glucose (88.9% vs 95.1%), weight (93.5% vs 98.3%), and blood pressure (94.8% vs 92.7%). Only in the case of glycosylated haemoglobin did shared care have poorer data collection (66.0% vs 98.4%). In all these parameters, except blood pressure, shared care out-performed the GP group. We conclude that with adequate support from and communication with hospital-based diabetes services, GPs are capable of providing care appropriate to the needs of uncomplicated diabetic patients.