Diabetes registers: a grassroots approach.

OBJECTIVES--To compile a register of diabetic patients within the catchment area of a district general hospital and evaluate the characteristics of the population using aggregated data from a general practice audit. DESIGN--Cross sectional study. Practices identified all known diabetics and completed a questionnaire from information in each patient''s medical record. SETTING--Practices affiliated to a district audit group in south east England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Number of participating practices; prevalence of diabetes and its complications; and sex distribution of patients, age at diagnosis and review, treatment, and metabolic control. Comparisons with similar data from other studies. RESULTS--41 out of 43 practices participated, and 2574 diabetic patients were identified (prevalence 1.18%). 52.4% of patients were male. The mean age was 61.6 years. 32% of patients were treated with insulin, 51.5% with oral hypoglycaemic agents, 16.5% with diet alone. The mean random blood glucose concentration was 10.4 mmol/l and glycosylated haemoglobin 10.1%. 8% had proteinuria, 7% a history of myocardial infarction, 5% a history of stroke, and 2% a diabetes related amputation. These proportions were not significantly different from those found in studies performed by different methods in Poole, Islington, Powys, Trowbridge, and Southall. CONCLUSION--It is feasible to compile a register of diabetic patients in a district and evaluate their characteristics by using only general practice sources.     

Prompting the clinical care of non-insulin dependent (type II) diabetic patients in an inner city area: one model of community care.

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of centrally organised prompting for coordinating community care of non-insulin dependent diabetic patients. DESIGN--Randomised single centre trial. Patients allocated to prompted care in the community or to continued attendance at hospital diabetic clinic (controls). Median follow up two years. SETTING--Two hospital outpatient clinics, 38 general practices, and 11 optometrists in the catchment area of a district general hospital in Islington. PATIENTS--181 patients attending hospital outpatient clinics. NULL HYPOTHESIS--There is no difference in process of medical care measures and medical outcome between prompted community care and hospital clinic care. RESULTS--14 hospital patients failed to receive a single review in the clinic as compared with three patients in the prompted group (chi 2 = 6.1, df = 1; p = 0.013). Follow up for retinal screening was better in prompted patients than in controls; two prompted patients defaulted as against 12 controls (chi 2 = 6.9, df = 1; p = 0.008). Three measures per patient yearly were more frequent in prompted patients: tests for albuminuria (median 3.0 v 2.3; p = 0.03), plasma glucose estimations (3.1 v 2.5; p = 0.003), and glycated haemoglobin estimations (2.4 v 0.9; p < 0.001). Continuity of care was better in the prompted group (3.2 v 2.2 reviews by each doctor seen; p < 0.001). The study ended with no significant differences between the groups in last recorded random plasma glucose concentration, glycated haemoglobin value, numbers admitted to hospital for a diabetes related reason, and number of deaths. Questionnaires revealed a high level of patient, general practitioner, and optometrist satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS--Six monthly prompting of non-insulin treated diabetic patients for care by inner city general practitioners and by optometrists is effective and acceptable.     

Metabolic control of diabetes in general practice clinics: comparison with a hospital clinic.

An assessment was made of the degree of metabolic control achieved in diabetic patients attending mini clinics run by general practitioners compared with that in matched diabetic patients attending a hospital clinic. Patients were grouped according to whether they were being treated with diet alone, an oral hypoglycaemic, insulin once daily, or insulin twice daily. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between patients attending mini clinics and those attending the hospital clinic in retrospective mean blood glucose, retrospective mean glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1), or prospective HbA1 concentrations. General practitioners providing diabetic care on an organised basis can achieve a degree of glycaemic control in diabetic patients equal to that reached by a hospital clinic.     

Integrated care for diabetes: clinical,psychosocial, and economic evaluation. Diabetes Integrated Care Evaluation Team.

OBJECTIVES--To evaluate integrated care for diabetes in clinical, psychosocial, and economic terms. DESIGN--Pragmatic randomised trial. SETTING--Hospital diabetic clinic and three general practice groups in Grampian. PATIENTS--274 adult diabetic patients attending a hospital clinic and registered with one of three general practices. INTERVENTION--Random allocation to conventional hospital clinic care or integrated care. Integrated care patients seen in general practice every three or four months and in the hospital clinic annually. General practitioners were given written guidelines for integrated care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Metabolic control, psychosocial status, knowledge of diabetes, beliefs about control of diabetes, satisfaction with treatment, disruption of normal activities, numbers of consultations and admissions, frequency of metabolic monitoring, costs to patients and NHS. RESULTS--A higher proportion of patients defaulted from conventional care (14 (10%)) than from integrated care (4 (3%), 95% confidence interval of difference 2% to 13%). After two years no significant differences were found between the groups in metabolic control, psychosocial status, knowledge, beliefs about control, satisfaction with treatment, unscheduled admissions, or disruption of normal activities. Integrated care was as effective for insulin dependent as non-insulin dependent patients. Patients in integrated care had more visits and higher frequencies of examination. Costs to patients were lower in integrated care (mean 1.70 pounds) than in conventional care (8 pounds). 88% of patients who experienced integrated care wished to continue with it. CONCLUSIONS--This model of integrated care for diabetes was at least as effective as conventional hospital clinic care.     

Comparative Study of District and Community Hospitals

Opinions conflict on whether there is a place in the Health Service for general practitioner (community) hospitals in which the patients'' treatment is mainly the responsibility of their family doctors. The authors therefore analysed a sample of the patients admitted in the course of a year to a group of two general district hospitals with a comparable sample of the patients admitted to a general practitioner hospital. The aim was to analyse the type of care provided in the general practitioner hospital, to assess whether it was appropriate for the type of cases treated, and to decide whether the patients would have been better off in the district general hospital (and vice versa). The main conclusions are that a district hospital is best for serious illnesses needing skilled decisions and assessments but that most of the work of these hospitals is not of this kind and a community hospital staffed by general practitioners offers many advantages to patients—provided the work being done is constantly under critical assessment. The authors plead for special refresher courses under the N.H.S. for general practitioners working in community hospitals.     

Referral patterns to an ophthalmic outpatient clinic by general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the role of these professionals in screening for ocular disease.

Case notes of 1113 consecutive new patients referred to a consultant ophthalmologist at a district general hospital were reviewed to determine the source and efficacy of referrals and the current screening practices of general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians. General practitioners initiated referral in 546 cases (49%) and ophthalmic opticians referral in 439 (39%). Visual loss or visual disturbance was the most important single reason for referral (345 cases; 31%), followed by suspected glaucoma (145 cases; 13%), abnormalities of binocular vision (140; 12.5%), disorders of eyelids or ocular adnexa (127; 11%), and red eye (86; 8%). General practitioners referred many more patients with disorders of the eyelids and adnexa and ophthalmic opticians many more patients with suspected glaucoma. Ophthalmic opticians were far more likely than general practitioners to refer patients with suspected glaucoma correctly. A total of 180 patients (16%) were referred from ocular screening, in 149 cases by ophthalmic opticians and in 10 by general practitioners. Seventy patients had glaucoma or incomplete features of glaucoma, all of them referred by ophthalmic opticians. Of eight diabetic patients referred by ophthalmic opticians, three had asymptomatic disease and in two diabetes was diagnosed as a result of ocular screening. No patient was referred for asymptomatic diabetic retinopathy from screening by general practitioners. Ophthalmic opticians were more likely than general practitioners to diagnose retinopathy requiring photocoagulation. Use of a community based service to screen for glaucoma could save unnecessary consultant outpatient appointments. A similar service could facilitate detection of diabetic retinopathy at a stage when treatment is most effective.     

Novel role for specialist nurses in managing diabetes in the community.

To develop care of diabetes further a specialist nurse established contact with general practices in Sheffield Health District and identified difficulties in providing a service for diabetics. One hundred and thirty practices were visited, and full data were collected from 104. Each practice agreed to establish a register of diabetics, and information and support were subsequently provided to help in developing services. In collecting information from each practice the nurse covered specific points on staff, facilities, and organisation. Over two years the service offered in 60 practices considerably improved, allowing a minimum standard of diabetic care to be achieved. This allowed coordinated and effective referral of certain patients from hospital diabetic clinics and improved services to those not attending any clinics.     

Improving care: a study of orthopaedic outpatient referrals.

OBJECTIVE--To identify aspects of outpatient referral in which general practitioners'', consultants'', and patients'' satisfaction could be improved. DESIGN--Questionnaire survey of general practitioners, consultant orthopaedic surgeons, and patients referred to an orthopaedic clinic. SETTING--Orthopaedic clinic, Doncaster Royal Infirmary. SUBJECTS--628 consecutive patients booked into the orthopaedic clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Views of the general practitioners as recorded both when the referral letter was received and again after the patient had been seen, views of the consultants as recorded at the time of the clinic attendance, and views of the patients as recorded immediately after the clinic visit and some time later. RESULTS--Consultants rated 213 of 449 referrals (42.7%) as possibly or definitely inappropriate, though 373 of 451 patients (82.7%) reported that they were helped by seeing the consultant. Targets for possible improvement included information to general practitioners about available services, communication between general practitioners and consultants, and administrative arrangements in clinics. Long waiting times were a problem, and it seemed that these might be reduced if general practitioners could provide more advice on non-surgical management. Some general practitioners stated that they would value easier telephone access to consultants for management advice. It was considered that an alternative source of management advice on musculoskeletal problems might enable more effective use to be made of specialist orthopaedic resources. Conclusion--A survey of patients'' and doctors'' views of referrals may be used to identify aspects in which the delivery of care could be made more efficient. Developing agreed referral guidelines might help general practitioners to make more effective use of hospital services.     

District programme to reduce smoking: effect of clinic supported brief intervention by general practitioners.

By encouraging and supporting general practitioners to undertake brief intervention on a routine basis smokers'' clinics could reach many more smokers than are willing to attend for intensive treatment. In a study with 101 general practitioners from 27 practices 4445 cigarette smokers received brief intervention with the support of a smokers'' clinic, brief intervention without such support, or the general practitioners'' usual care. At one year follow up the numbers of smokers who reported that they were no longer smoking cigarettes were 51 (13%), 63 (9%), and 263 (8%), respectively (p less than 0.005). After an adjustment was made for those cases not validated by urine cotinine concentrations the respective success rates were 8%, 5%, and 5%. Use of nicotine chewing gum was associated with higher self reported success rates. General practitioners providing supported brief intervention encouraged not only more smokers to use the gum but also more effective use; gum users in this group reported a success rate of 27% at one year. Compliance by the general practitioners in recording smoking state averaged 45%, and significantly higher success rates were reported by patients whose smoking state had been recorded. Brief intervention by general practitioners with the support of a smokers'' clinic thus significantly enhanced success rates based on self reports. Better results might be obtained if general practitioners'' compliance with the procedure could be improved and if they encouraged more of their patients to try nicotine gum. Collaboration of this kind between a smokers'' clinic and local general practitioners could deliver effective help to many more smokers than are likely to be affected if the two continue to work separately.     

Adding retinal photography to screening for diabetic retinopathy: a prospective study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate whether adding retinal photography improved community screening for diabetic retinopathy. SETTING--Mobile screening unit at rural and urban general practices in south west England. SUBJECTS--1010 diabetic patients from primary care. DESIGN--Prospective study; patients were examined by ophthalmoscopy by general practitioners or opticians without fundal photographs and again with photographs, and assessments were compared to those of an ophthalmologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Whether fundal photography improved the sensitivity of detection of retinopathy and referrable diabetic retinopathy, and whether this sensitivity could be improved by including a review of the films by the specialist. RESULTS--Diabetic retinopathy was detected by the ophthalmologist in 205 patients (20.5%) and referrable retinopathy in 49 (4.9%). The sensitivity of the general practitioners and opticians for referrable retinopathy with ophthalmoscopy was 65%, and improved to 84% with retinal photographs. General practitioners'' sensitivity in detecting background retinopathy improved with photographs from 22% to 65%; opticians'' sensitivity in detecting background retinopathy improved from 43% to 71%. The sensitivity of detecting referrable retinopathy by general practitioners improved from 56% to 80% with photographs; for opticians it improved from 75% to 88%. CONCLUSIONS--Combining modalities of screening by providing photography with specialist review of all films in addition to direct ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils improves assessment and referral for diabetic retinopathy by general practitioners and opticians. With further training and experience, primary care screeners should be able to achieve a sensitivity that will achieve an effective, acceptable, and economical community based screening programme for this condition.     

Randomised controlled trial of routine hospital clinic care versus routine general practice care for type II diabetics.

Two hundred patients with type II diabetes were entered into a randomised controlled trial lasting five years to compare routine care of this condition by a hospital diabetic clinic with routine care in general practice. Fewer patients in the group being cared for by their general practitioner (general practice group) were regularly reviewed or had regular estimations of blood glucose concentration. More patients in the general practice group than in the hospital group were admitted to hospital for medical reasons during the study (25 (24%) compared with 17 (18%] and more patients in the general practice group died (18) than did in the hospital group (6). At the end of the study mean concentrations of haemoglobin A1 were higher in the general practice group (10.4%) than in the hospital group (9.5%). Routine care in general practice for patients with type II diabetes was less satisfactory than care by the hospital diabetic clinic.     

Cardiovascular State of Newly Discovered Diabetic Women

A cardiovascular study of a group of 90 newly diagnosed diabetic women aged 35 to 75 years was begun in 1965 and a repeat examination was carried out on the same patients in 1968. A high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease was found in these patients at the time of diagnosis, and this finding had some predictive value as regards prognosis over the three-year period.A comparative study with general medical outpatients and long-established diabetics (greater than 10 years'' duration of disease) confirmed the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in late-onset mild diabetics controlled by diet or oral drugs. It is suggested that this type of milder diabetic patient contributes in undue proportion to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in diabetes.     

Provision of hearing aids: does specialist assessment cause delay?

OBJECTIVE--To identify the main delay in the provision of hearing aids for people with impaired hearing and identify possible problems and short-comings caused by a community based hearing aid dispensing service. DESIGN--Prospective cohort analysis based on data collected from patients on the duration of hearing impairment, from the referral letters in respect of the general practitioners'' findings on otoscopy, and from the ear, nose, and throat assessment in the clinic with respect to the outcome of specialist otoscopy and management of the hearing impairment. SETTING--General ear, nose, and throat outpatient clinic. PATIENTS--100 Consecutive patients aged 19-94 referred by general practitioners for the provision of hearing aids or for assessment and treatment of impaired hearing. RESULTS--Most patients with impaired hearing did not seek medical advice for at least a year. The time from referral by the general practitioner to the provision of a hearing aid was under two months. General practitioners consistently recognised normality on otoscopy but failed to recognise abnormality in eight of 45 cases. Seven patients required further investigation to exclude serious disease and nine had conditions amenable to surgery. CONCLUSIONS--The main cause of delay in treating impaired hearing is failure by patients to seek help promptly. Specialist assessment of patients with impaired hearing is preferable and does not necessarily cause delay in providing hearing aids. The provision of hearing aids should remain a hospital based service.     

Long-term digoxin treatment in general practice.

A questionnaire was sent to several general practitioners and specialists in an attempt to obtain a consensus on standards of care for patients receiving long-term digoxin treatment. The consultants'' suggested standards were slightly more stringent than those of the general practitioners. The records of 42 patients taking digoxin under the care of two general practitioners were studied to see how far their actual care matched up to the suggested standards. The models of management proposed by these patients'' doctors were only slightly different from those suggested by other practitioners, but measured against these models the patients'' care was in some cases inadequate. Nevertheless, there was little relationship between the recorded levels of care and the health of the patient, and it may have been the standard of recording rather than the care that was inadequate. Measuring plasma digoxin levels in these patients proved to be of little value. Medical audit is thus a useful tool in helping the general practitioner to review his work and improve his knowledge, but it may not be a practical or true way of measuring the quality of care.     

Combining specialist and primary health care teams for HIV positive patients: retrospective and prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a model of health care for HIV positive patients involving specialist, hospital based teams and primary health care teams. DESIGN: One year retrospective and a 2 1/2 year prospective study. SETTING: Two hospitals in West London and 88 general practitioners in 72 general hospitals. SUBJECTS: 209 adults with HIV infection. INTERVENTION: General practitioners enrolled in the project were faxed structured outpatient clinic summaries. When hospital inpatients were discharged, a brief discharge summary was faxed. General practitioners had access to consultant physicians skilled in HIV medicine through a 24 hour mobile telephone service. An HIV/AIDS management and treatment guide containing relevant local information was produced. Quarterly discussion forums for general practitioners were held, and a regular newsletter was produced. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital attendance and general practitioner consultations; perceived benefits and problems of patients and general practitioners. RESULTS: The average length of a hospital inpatient stay was halved for those patients who had participated in the project for two years, and the average number of visits to the outpatient clinic per month fell for patients with AIDS. There was a substantial increase in the number of visits to general practitioners by patients with AIDS and symptomatic HIV infection. Patients and general practitioners both felt that the standard of health care provided had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model of health care efficiently and effectively utilised existing teams of hospital and primary health care professionals to provide care for HIV positive patients. Simple, prompt, and regular communication systems which provided information relevant to the needs of general practitioners were central to its success.     

Community care and the fundholder.

According to the government, clearly agreed local arrangements should enable individual general practitioners to make their full contribution to the new system of community care without getting involved in extra bureaucracy. From 1 April the main part of that contribution will be to refer to social services those patients who seem to need social care. Many general practitioners are worried that such referrals will be complex and time consuming and will generate too much extra work. Moreover, general practitioners may also be asked to see patients specifically to help social workers'' assessment procedures, and many fear that such consultations will overwork and underpay them. General practitioner fundholders already use contracts to spell out what they expect from hospital services. From 1 April they will be able to set up contracts for community health services such as district nursing and chiropody, and possibly this might be extended to social aspects of community care. Over the past 14 months Dr Rhidian Morris and his partners in a fundholding practice in Devon have piloted contracts for all aspects of community care. In this article Dr Morris explains how the most radical part of the pilot project--the contract for social care--was set up. He argues that the lessons on communication that came from what was essentially a fundholding project could apply also to non-fundholding practices.     

Purchasing for all: an alternative to fundholding.

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate general practitioner participation in a district health authority''s purchasing work. DESIGN--Questionnaire study of 131 Hackney general practitioners and 33 senior health service managers; review of the minutes of 28 meetings of the Hackney General Practitioners'' Forum and the contract between City and Hackney Health Authority and the St Bartholomew''s NHS Trust. SETTING--Hackney General Practitioners'' Forum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--General practitioners'' and managers'' perceptions of how representative and effective the general practitioners'' forum is; proportion of new quality targets and service developments contributed by general practitioners; main issues discussed by the forum and impact on district health authority policy. RESULTS--99 (76%) general practitioners and 27 (82%) managers responded. Both groups perceived the forum as representative. 92% (24/26) of the managers thought the forum was effective but only 74% (70/95) of general practitioners did so, largely because some doubted that the forum was listened to 75% (103/138) of quality targets and 55% (16/29) of service developments planned in the 1993-4 contract were contributed by general practitioners. They also lobbied successfully for more resources for urology and community mental health services. CONCLUSIONS--Input into commissioning via a general practitioners'' forum can be both representative and effective. General practitioners need to work closely to achieve a consensus and those involved need administrative support. The relation between general practice and public health medicine needs to be strengthened.