Dataset Information

Quality of Diabetes Care in Germany Improved from 2000 to 2007 to 2014, but Improvements Diminished since 2007. Evidence from the Population-Based KORA Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Little is known about the development of the quality of diabetes care in Germany. The aim of this study is to analyze time trends in patient self-management, physician-delivered care, medication, risk factor control, complications and quality of life from 2000 to 2014.

Methods

Analyses are based on data from individuals with type 2 diabetes of the population-based KORA S4 (1999-2001, n = 150), F4 (2006-2008, n = 203), FF4 (2013/14, n = 212) cohort study. Information on patient self-management, physician-delivered care, medication, risk factor control and quality of life were assessed in standardized questionnaires and examinations. The 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk was calculated using the UKPDS risk engine. Time trends were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, education, diabetes duration, and history of cardiovascular disease.

Results

From 2000 to 2014 the proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetic/cardio-protective medication and of those reaching treatment goals for glycemic control (HbA1c<7%, 60% to 71%, p = 0.09), blood pressure (<140/80 mmHg, 25% to 69%, p<0.001) and LDL cholesterol (<2.6 mmol/l, 13% to 27%, p<0.001) increased significantly. However, improvements were generally smaller from 2007 to 2014 than from 2000 to 2007. Modeled 10-year CHD risk decreased from 30% in 2000 to 24% in 2007 to 19% in 2014 (p<0.01). From 2007 to 2014, the prevalence of microvascular complications decreased and quality of life increased, but no improvements were observed for the majority of indicators of self-management.

Conclusion

Despite improvements, medication and risk factor control has remained suboptimal. The flattening of improvements and deteriorations in quality of (self-) care since 2007 indicate that more effort is needed to improve quality of care and patient self-management. Due to selection or lead time bias an overestimation of quality of care improvements cannot be ruled out.

SUBMITTER: Laxy M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5066975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo address concerns that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) unfairly penalized safety net hospitals treating patients with high social and functional risks, Medicare recently modified HRRP to compare hospitals with similar proportions of high-risk, dual-eligible patients ("peer group hospitals"). Whether the change fully accounts for patients' social and functional risks is unknown.ObjectiveExamine risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) and hospital penalties after adding patient-level social and functional and community-level risk factors.DesignUsing 2000-2014 Medicare hospital discharge, Health and Retirement Study, and community-level data, latent factors for patient social and functional factors and community factors were identified. We estimated RSRRs for peer groups and by safety net status using four hierarchical logistic regression models: "base" (HRRP model); "patient" (base plus patient factors); "community" (base plus community factors); and "full" (all factors). The proportion of hospitals penalized was calculated by safety net status.Patients20,255 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (65+) with eligible index hospitalizations MAIN MEASURES: RSRRs KEY RESULTS: Half of safety net hospitals are in peer group 5. Compared with other hospitals, peer group 5 hospitals (most dual-eligibles) treated sicker, more functionally limited patients from socially disadvantaged groups. RSRRs decreased by 0.7% for peer groups 2 and 4 and 1.3% for peer group 5 under the patient and full (versus base) models. Measured performance improved after adjusting for patient risk factors for hospitals in peer group 4 and 5 hospitals, but worsened for those in peer groups 1, 2, and 3. Under the patient (versus base) model, fewer safety net hospitals (48.7% versus 51.3%) but more non-safety net hospitals (50.0% versus 49.1%) were penalized.ConclusionsPatient-level risk adjustment decreased RSRRs for hospitals serving more at-risk patients and proportion of safety net hospitals penalized, while modestly increasing RSRRs and proportion of non-safety net hospitals penalized. Results suggest HRRP modifications may not fully account for hospital variation in patient-level risk.