Factors influencing variation in participation in the National Diabetes Audit and the impact on the Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators of diabetes care management.

Caroline E Wright, Stephen Yeung, Helen Knowles, Antoinette Woodhouse, Emma Barron, Sian Evans
Author Information
  1. Caroline E Wright: Local Knowledge and Intelligence Service (East), Public Health England Midlands and East Region, Cambridge, UK.
  2. Stephen Yeung: Local Knowledge and Intelligence Service (East), Public Health England Midlands and East Region, Cambridge, UK.
  3. Helen Knowles: Local Knowledge and Intelligence Service (East), Public Health England Midlands and East Region, Cambridge, UK.
  4. Antoinette Woodhouse: Local Knowledge and Intelligence Service (East), Public Health England Midlands and East Region, Cambridge, UK.
  5. Emma Barron: National Cardiovascular Intelligence Network, Public Health England Yorkshire and the Humber, Leeds, UK.
  6. Sian Evans: Local Knowledge and Intelligence Service (East), Public Health England Midlands and East Region, Cambridge, UK.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Participation in the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) has become a contractual requirement for all general practices in England and is used as part of the assessment framework for sustainability and transformation partnership (STP) footprints. The study aimed to investigate general practice-related factors which may influence participation in the NDA, and the impact that participation in the NDA may have on diabetes management and patient care.
RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of routine primary care data from 45 725 646 patients aged 17+ years registered across 7779 general practices in England was performed using logistic regression. The main outcome measures included general practice voluntary participation in the NDA, general practice-related factors (practice size, deprivation, diabetes prevalence, geographic area, practice population age) and diabetes management outcomes (cholesterol, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)).
RESULTS: Participation in the NDA differed significantly according to practice size (t(7653)=-9.93, p=0.001), level of deprivation (χ(9)=36.17, p<0.0001), diabetes prevalence (p<0.0001), practice population age (p<0.0001), and geographic area (χ(26)=676.9, p<0.0001). In addition, the Quality and Outcomes Framework diabetes indicator HbA1c (OR 1.01, CI 1.0 to 1.01, p=0.0001) but not cholesterol (p=0.055) or blood pressure (p=0.76) was independently associated with NDA participation when controlling for practice-related factors.
CONCLUSION: Variation in NDA participation exists. It is suggested that some practices may need additional support when submitting data to the NDA and that NDA participation may have an impact on diabetes outcomes. However, the use of NDA outcomes as a measure of progress with diabetes care by STPs is still unclear and further investigation is needed.

Keywords

References

  1. Diabet Med. 2012 Jul;29(7):855-62 [PMID: 22537247]
  2. BMC Fam Pract. 2006 Nov 13;7:68 [PMID: 17096861]
  3. J R Soc Med. 2000 Apr;93(4):183-6 [PMID: 10844883]
  4. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 May;51(466):356-60 [PMID: 11360698]
  5. Lancet. 1998 Sep 12;352(9131):837-53 [PMID: 9742976]
  6. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Apr 1;138(7):587-92 [PMID: 12667031]
  7. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14):977-86 [PMID: 8366922]
  8. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Jul;93(1):1-9 [PMID: 21382643]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2560-72 [PMID: 18539916]
  10. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jun 27;165(12):1410-9 [PMID: 15983291]
  11. BMJ. 1998 Aug 8;317(7155):390-6 [PMID: 9694757]
  12. J R Soc Med. 2007 Jun;100(6):275-83 [PMID: 17541098]
  13. Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Jan;60(570):36-48 [PMID: 20040166]
  14. J Public Health (Oxf). 2014 Jun;36(2):251-8 [PMID: 23929885]
  15. Diabetes Care. 2009 Nov;32(11):2068-74 [PMID: 19651921]
  16. Fam Pract. 2001 Feb;18(1):27-32 [PMID: 11145624]
  17. BMJ. 1998 May 16;316(7143):1505-6 [PMID: 9582142]
  18. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Dec;16(6):446-9 [PMID: 18055889]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0diabetesNDAparticipationgeneralcarepractice0001maymanagementoutcomesp=0p<0practicespractice-relatedfactorsimpact1ParticipationNationalDiabetesAuditEnglandprimarydatasizedeprivationprevalencegeographicareapopulationagecholesterolbloodpressureHbA1cχ9QualityOutcomesFramework01OBJECTIVE:becomecontractualrequirementusedpartassessmentframeworksustainabilitytransformationpartnershipSTPfootprintsstudyaimedinvestigateinfluencepatientRESEARCHDESIGN:cross-sectionalanalysisroutine45725646patientsaged17+yearsregisteredacross7779performedusinglogisticregressionmainoutcomemeasuresincludedvoluntaryhemoglobinA1cRESULTS:differedsignificantlyaccordingt7653=-993001level=361726=676additionindicatorORCI005576independentlyassociatedcontrollingCONCLUSION:VariationexistssuggestedneedadditionalsupportsubmittingHoweverusemeasureprogressSTPsstillunclearinvestigationneededFactorsinfluencingvariationindicatorsnationalaudit

Similar Articles

Cited By