Premium
Diabetes quality of care at a university community in B eirut
Author(s) -
Lakkis Najla A.,
Mahmassani Dina M.,
Hamadeh Ghassan N.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12386
Subject(s) - medicine , psychological intervention , family medicine , population , health care , observational study , diabetes mellitus , pay for performance , medical record , gerontology , nursing , environmental health , endocrinology , economics , economic growth
Rationale, aims and objectives To assess the quality of diabetes mellitus ( DM ) care provided by a group of family doctors in B eirut. Methods An observational study, conducted at the A merican U niversity of B eirut M edical C enter– F amily M edicine C linics ( AUBMC – FMC ), examined the electronic health records ( EHRs ) of the beneficiaries of the H ealth I nsurance P lan at the A merican U niversity of B eirut ( AUB – HIP ) who were older than 20 years ( n = 9469) in 2009. The eligible population included patients with DM ( n = 701). Several provider/patient‐directed interventions were introduced in the late 2000s, including a comprehensive EHRs system with point‐of‐care computer reminders, a provider financial incentive based on an annual performance appraisal ranked against that of the US H ealthcare E ffectiveness D ata and I nformation S et ( HEDIS ) C omprehensive D iabetes C are indicators, as well as periodic up‐to‐date training. Results Optimal control for HbA1c , low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure were found in 58.6%, 51.0%, 22.4%, 53.3% and 60.2% of the population, respectively. 64.1% and 70.0% received screening for diabetic nephropathy and a dilated eye examination, respectively. When benchmarked against the HEDIS C omprehensive D iabetes C are indicators, the AUB – HIP 's quality of care was 13% higher than the average of all plans in the U nited S tates. Screening for nephropathy, however, did not reach the above benchmark. Conclusions Benchmarking served as an important tool in evaluating the current DM care offered and in detecting gaps, yet interventions are recommended for further improvement.