TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of a programme to improve quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes on hard to reach groups: The GEDAPS study
AU - Bodicoat, Danielle H.
AU - Mundet, Xavier
AU - Davies, Melanie J.
AU - Khunti, Kamlesh
AU - Roura, Pilar
AU - Franch, Josep
AU - Mata-Cases, Manel
AU - Cos, Xavier
AU - Cano, J. Franciso
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - © 2014 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Aims We investigated whether a continuous quality improvement programme in primary care for people with type 2 diabetes led to better care and outcomes in hard to reach groups. Methods GEDAPS was implemented in Catalonia, Spain between 1993 (n = 2239) and 2002 (n = 5819). Process (e.g. education), intermediate (e.g. HbA1c) and final (e.g. retinopathy) outcomes were compared between urban and rural areas, and between younger (74 years) and older (75 years) individuals as examples of harder to reach groups. Results In 1993, people in urban areas had significantly better or similar outcomes to rural areas; by 2002, most outcomes improved in urban and rural areas. For all outcomes, the improvement in rural areas was similar to or better than urban areas. Similarly, for most outcomes, the younger and older group improved, with the older group experiencing similar or better improvements than the younger group for all indicators, except coronary artery disease. Conclusions A quality improvement programme was associated with equivalent or better outcomes in hard to reach groups, regardless of whether they were specifically targeted. The ability to apply one programme to all populations could save time and money.
AB - © 2014 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Aims We investigated whether a continuous quality improvement programme in primary care for people with type 2 diabetes led to better care and outcomes in hard to reach groups. Methods GEDAPS was implemented in Catalonia, Spain between 1993 (n = 2239) and 2002 (n = 5819). Process (e.g. education), intermediate (e.g. HbA1c) and final (e.g. retinopathy) outcomes were compared between urban and rural areas, and between younger (74 years) and older (75 years) individuals as examples of harder to reach groups. Results In 1993, people in urban areas had significantly better or similar outcomes to rural areas; by 2002, most outcomes improved in urban and rural areas. For all outcomes, the improvement in rural areas was similar to or better than urban areas. Similarly, for most outcomes, the younger and older group improved, with the older group experiencing similar or better improvements than the younger group for all indicators, except coronary artery disease. Conclusions A quality improvement programme was associated with equivalent or better outcomes in hard to reach groups, regardless of whether they were specifically targeted. The ability to apply one programme to all populations could save time and money.
KW - Quality improvement
KW - Quality ofhealthcare
KW - Ruralpopulation
KW - Type2diabetesmellitus
U2 - 10.1016/j.pcd.2014.08.001
DO - 10.1016/j.pcd.2014.08.001
M3 - Article
VL - 9
SP - 211
EP - 218
JO - Primary Care Diabetes
JF - Primary Care Diabetes
SN - 1751-9918
IS - 3
ER -
