A preliminary study of the relationship between general practice care and hospitalisation using a diabetes register, CARDIAB
Elizabeth J. Comino A D , Duong Thuy Tran B , Jane R. Taggart A , Siaw-Teng Liaw A , Warwick Ruscoe C , Jill M. Snow C and Mark F. Harris AA Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: j.taggart@unsw.edu.au; siaw@unsw.edu.au; m.f.harris@unsw.edu.au
B Centre for Health Research, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia. Email: d.tran@uws.edu.au
C Southern Highlands Division of General Practice, PO Box 724, Bowral, NSW 2576, Australia. Email: warwick@shdivgp.com.au; jill@shdivgp.com.au
D Corresponding author. Email: e.comino@unsw.edu.au
Australian Health Review 37(2) 210-217 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH12175
Submitted: 26 April 2012 Accepted: 12 September 2012 Published: 18 March 2013
Abstract
Background. Diabetes can be effectively managed in general practice (GP). This study used record linkage to explore associations between diabetes care in GP and hospitalisation.
Methods. Data on patients with type 2 diabetes were extracted from a Division of GP diabetes register (CARDIAB) for 2002–05 and were linked to the New South Wales Admitted Patient and Emergency Department (ED) Data Collection to create a unit record data collection containing demographic, clinical and health service records. Rates of admission and ED presentation per patient-year of follow up were calculated for the year following CARDIAB record.
Results. The study included 1178 diabetic patients with 2959 patient-years of follow up. Their mean age was 65.7 years and duration of diabetes was 5.9 years. All-cause admission and ED presentation rates were 0.7 and 0.2 per patient-year of follow up respectively and length of admission 3.2 days (s.d. 11.7 days). Admission was associated with age, duration of diabetes and prior admission. The number of processes of care recorded for each patient-year was associated with admission. Admission and length of stay were not associated with achievement of clinical targets.
Conclusions. These data suggest that receipt of processes of care, rather than clinical targets, will prevent admission. One explanation may be that continuity of care in GP provides opportunity for early intervention and treatment.
What is known about the topic? Diabetes is a serious public health problem that is largely managed in primary care. Health care planners use health service use (hospital admissions) for diabetes as an indicator of primary care. Guidelines for diabetes care are known to be effective in reducing diabetes-related complications.
What does this paper add? This paper created a linked data collection comprising demographic and clinical data from general practice and administrative health records of hospital admissions and emergency department presentations. The paper explores the associations between processes of primary care and control of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, and use of health services for a general practice population with diabetes.
What are the implications for practitioners? The study suggests that processes of care and not technical control of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors are important in preventing hospital admission. Continuity of care in general practice that ensures implementation of processes of care provides opportunity for early intervention and treatment.
References
[1] Purdy S. Avoiding hospital admissions: What does the research evidence say? London: The King’s Fund 2010.[2] Ansari Z, Carson N, Serraglio A, Barbetti T, Cicuttini F. The Victorian Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions study: reducing demand on hospital services in Victoria. Aust Health Rev 2002; 25 71–7.
| The Victorian Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions study: reducing demand on hospital services in Victoria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Kim H, Helmer DA, Zhao A, Boockvar K. Potentially preventable hospitalisations among older adults with diabetes. Am J Manag Care 2011; 17 e419–26.
[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian hospital statistics 2006–07. Health services series no. 31. Cat. no. HSE 55. Canberra: AIHW; 2008.
[5] New South Wales Department of Health Population Health Division. The health of the people of New South Wales − Report of the Chief Health Officer. Sydney: NSW Department of Health; 2010. Available from: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep [verified 6 June 2011]
[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health 2010. Cat. no. AUS 122. Canberra: AIHW; 2010.
[7] Caminal J, Starfield B, Sanchez E, Casanova C, Morales M. The role of primary care in preventing ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Eur J Public Health 2004; 14 246–51.
| The role of primary care in preventing ambulatory care sensitive conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Purdy S, Griffin T, Salisbury C, Sharp D. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions: terminology and disease coding need to be more specific to aid policy makers and clinicians. Public Health 2009; 123 169–73.
| Ambulatory care sensitive conditions: terminology and disease coding need to be more specific to aid policy makers and clinicians.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1M7ksleqsw%3D%3D&md5=adb091f2c7b02ea1ddb272fa8f2da1f3CAS |
[9] Seddon ME, Marshall MN, Campbell SM, Roland MO. Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Qual Health Care 2001; 10 152–8.
| Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvptFejtg%3D%3D&md5=f235dd9e3c432ad36b9786e251aaf389CAS |
[10] Finch K, Iwasaki K. Ambulatory-care-sensitive admission rates: A key metric in evaluating health plan medical-management effectiveness. Seattle: Millman, 2009.
[11] Porell F. A comparison of ambulatory care-sensitive hospital discharge rates for Medicaid HMO enrollees and nonenrollees. Med Care Res Rev 2001; 58 404–24.
| A comparison of ambulatory care-sensitive hospital discharge rates for Medicaid HMO enrollees and nonenrollees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FjtlSjtQ%3D%3D&md5=99d6cc538909af906a48e699fe7b68efCAS |
[12] Mendonca CS, Duncan BB, Nunes LN, Leyh W. Trends in hospitalizations for primary care sensitive conditions following the implementation of Family Health Teams in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Health Policy Plan 2012; 27 348–55.
[13] Guanais F, Macinko J. Primary care and avoidable hospitalizations: evidence from Brazil. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 2009; 32 115–22.
[14] Warner EA, Ziboh AU. The effects of outpatient management on hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions associated with diabetes mellitus. South Med J 2008; 101 815–7.
| The effects of outpatient management on hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions associated with diabetes mellitus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Wang J, Imai K, Engelgau MM, Geiss LS, Wen C, Zhang P. Secular trends in diabetes-related preventable hospitalizations in the United States, 1998–2006. Diabetes Care 2009; 32 1213–7.
| Secular trends in diabetes-related preventable hospitalizations in the United States, 1998–2006.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Britt HMG, Charles J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Pan Y, Valenti L. et al. General Practice Activity in Australia 2010–11. General Practice Series no. 29. Sydney: Sydney University Press; 2011. Available from: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/7772/4/9781920899868_CDROM.pdf [verified 27 August 2012].
[17] Harris P, Mann L, Phillips P, Bolger-Harris H, Webster C. Diabetes management in general practice: guidelines for type 2 diabetes. Seventeenth edition. Melbourne: RACGP/Diabetes Australia; 2011. Available at http://www.racgp.org.au/your-practice/guidelines/diabetes. [Verified 17 December 2012.]
[18] Dixon T. Costs of diabetes in Australia, 2000–01. Bulletin No. 26. AIHW Cat. No. AUS 59. Canberra: AIHW; 2005.
[19] Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 1577–89.
| 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXht1Wgt7nK&md5=62fccf48cf7594b9bd48751213550b43CAS |
[20] DCCT/EDIC Research Groups Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 2643–53.
| Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Neil HA, Matthews DR. Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 1565–76.
| Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXht1Wgt7zM&md5=5e95f5bead295d0a042702cb4683d500CAS |
[22] UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Tight blood pressure control and risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS. BMJ 1998; 317 703–13.
| Tight blood pressure control and risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Medicare Australia. Practice Incentive Program: Diabetes Incentive Guidelines − August 2011 Canberra: Medicare Australia; 2011. Available from: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/incentives/pip/ [Verified 17 December 2012.]
[24] The Centre for Health Record Linkage. The Centre for Health Record Linkage. 2011. Available from: http://www.cherel.org.au/. [Verified 17 December 2012.]
[25] Wan Q, Taggart J, Powell-Davies G, Harris M. Longitudinal analysis of diabetes data in the Southern Highlands Division of General Practice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity; 2006.
[26] Diabetes Australia. Diabetes management in general practice: guidelines for type 2 diabetes 2010/11. Sydney: Diabetes Australia; 2010.
[27] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts 2008. AIHW: Canberra; 2008.
[28] Brameld KJ, Ward A, Gavin AL, Holman CD. Health outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. A record linkage study. Aust Fam Physician 2002; 31 775–8.
[29] Kelman CW, Bass AJ, Holman CD. Research use of linked health data − a best practice protocol. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002; 26 251–5.
| Research use of linked health data − a best practice protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38zpt1Oitg%3D%3D&md5=d2d285162d7e0f8ca9dcf0ac274ce53eCAS |
[30] Georgiou A, Burns J, McKenzie S, Penn D, Flack J, Harris MF. Monitoring change in diabetes care using diabetes registers: experience from Divisions of General Practice. Aust Fam Physician 2006; 35 77–80.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28%2FpvFCrtw%3D%3D&md5=8e9e61458b95f3e953ae8939940c8d58CAS |
[31] Brown A, Reynolds LR, Bruemmer D. Intensive glycemic control and cardiovascular disease: an update. Nature Rev Cardiol 2010; 7 369–75.
| Intensive glycemic control and cardiovascular disease: an update.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXnvFylu7w%3D&md5=42cd147668363c67b562d8da7fc26560CAS |
[32] Parati G, Bilo G, Ochoa JE. Benefits of tight blood pressure control in diabetic patients with hypertension: importance of early and sustained implementation of effective treatment strategies. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 S297–303.
| Benefits of tight blood pressure control in diabetic patients with hypertension: importance of early and sustained implementation of effective treatment strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[33] Dailey G. Early and intensive therapy for management of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical Therapeutics 2011; 33 665–78.
| Early and intensive therapy for management of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
