Premium
The poor quality of diabetes care in a cluster randomized community survey from Delhi (DEDICOM‐II): A crisis, an opportunity
Author(s) -
Nagpal Jitender,
Rawat Swapnil,
Goyal Siddhi,
Lata Anthikad S.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/dme.14530
Subject(s) - medicine , diabetes mellitus , cluster sampling , confidence interval , randomized controlled trial , cross sectional study , cluster (spacecraft) , demography , gerontology , environmental health , population , pathology , computer science , programming language , endocrinology , sociology
Aims To evaluate the quality of care in known diabetes patients of Delhi. Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted using a two‐stage cluster design. In all, 30 of 150 wards were chosen in Stage 1 (using a random computer‐generated seed value and then selecting wards at a predefined sampling interval; Probability Proportionate to Size—Systematic) and one colony from each ward was selected randomly in Stage 2. The selected areas were surveyed house‐to‐house in one‐of‐four random directions to recruit a minimum of 25 subjects (known diabetes ≥1 year; 35–65 years of age) per area. Data were collected by interview, blood sampling and from medical records by specifically trained research staff. Results A total of 843 subjects (of 1315 eligible) were enrolled from 11,490 houses. For the intermediate outcome measures, an estimated 33.5% (95% CI 27.3–40.2) had an HbA 1c value >10%, 67.2% (95% CI 62.8–71.4) had an LDL cholesterol level >100 mg/dl and 57.3% (95% CI 50.4–63.9) had BP levels >140/90 mmHg. For the processes of care in the last 1 year, 25.6% (95% CI 19.7–32.6) of the patients had an HbA 1c (A1c) estimation and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1–4.9) had a dilated eye examination and 4.1% (95% CI 2.6–6.2) had foot examination. Diabetes self‐management education was provided to only 11.3% (95% CI 8.6–14.7) while nutrition counselling was provided to 56.0% (95% CI 51.7–60.2). Conclusions The glycaemic control, lipid control and BP management of known diabetes patients in Delhi are unacceptably poor and a wide gap exists between practice recommendations and delivery of diabetes care in Delhi.