Importance of an alternative approach to measuring quality in a volume-to-value world: a case study of diabetes care

Potency of quality indicators in Dutch and international diabetes registries

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus forms a slow pandemic. Cardiovascular risk and quality of diabetes care are strongly associated. Quality indicators improve diabetes management and reduce mortality and costs. Various national diabetes registries render national quality indicators. We describe diabetes care indicators for Dutch children and adults with diabetes, and compare them with indicators established by registries worldwide.

METHODS

Indicator scores were derived from the Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes Indicator sets of other national diabetes registries were collected and juxtaposed with global and continental initiatives for indicator sets.

RESULTS

This observational cohort study included 3738 patients representative of the Dutch diabetic outpatient population. The Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes harbors ten quality indicators comprising treatment volumes, HbA1c control, foot examination, insulin pump therapy, and real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Worldwide, nine national registries record quality indicators, with great variety between registries. HbA1c control is recorded most frequently, and no indicator is reported among all registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variety among quality indicators recorded by national diabetes registries hinders international comparison and interpretation of quality of diabetes care. The potential of quality evaluation will be greatly enhanced when diabetes care indicators are aligned in an international standard set with variation across countries taken into consideration.

Gender gaps in type 1 diabetes care

AIMS

Diabetes mellitus is one of the largest global health concerns of recent times. Women with diabetes mellitus have a higher excess risk of all-cause mortality and more vascular events than men. Focusing on type 1 diabetes, this could be caused by gender inequalities in delivered diabetes care. This study aims to assess gender differences in type 1 diabetes outpatient care, particularly diagnostics and outcomes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional cohort study included all adult type 1 diabetes patients in the Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes (DPARD) visiting diabetes outpatient clinics between 2016-2021. The frequency of process measurements, including physical examination and laboratory testing, was assessed among both sexes after adjustment for age and body mass index. Gender differences in eGFR ≥ 60, BMI-, and control in blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol were evaluated. Hospital variation in achieving HbA1c targets of 53 mmol/mol and median HbA1c were assessed. Cardiovascular risk scores were calculated in men and women using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) European low-risk chart.

RESULTS

Our study showed a 17% higher odds of reaching weight control and a 23% lower odds of achieving blood pressure targets in men than women. Gender-skewed cardiovascular mortality risk scores were found. Gender disparities in outcomes appear not to be caused by gender-biased attitudes in healthcare professionals since no gender differences were found in the performance of process measurements in type 1 diabetes care. In addition, hospitals appear to vary by extent of gender differences in achieving a target HbA1c of 53 mmol/mol.

CONCLUSION

Gender equality exists in the diagnostic process of diabetes care. However, differences in weight control, blood pressure control, and cardiovascular mortality risk scores remain between both sexes, most likely due to multifactorial causes. Indications for interhospital variation in gender disparities in HbA1c control exist. Further focus on performance of process measurements between hospitals may identify areas for improvement of gender-skewed outcomes to further enhance Dutch diabetes care for both sexes.

Implementation support practitioners - a proposal for consolidating a diverse evidence base

BACKGROUND

Workforce development for implementation practice has been identified as a grand challenge in health services. This is due to the embryonic nature of the existing research in this area, few available training programs and a general shortage of frontline service staff trained and prepared for practicing implementation in the field. The interest in the role of "implementation support" as a way to effectively build the implementation capacities of the human service sector has therefore increased. However, while frequently used, little is known about the skills and competencies required to effectively provide such support.

MAIN BODY

To progress the debate and the research agenda on implementation support competencies, we propose the role of the "implementation support practitioner" as a concept unifying the multiple streams of research focused on e.g. consultation, facilitation, or knowledge brokering. Implementation support practitioners are professionals supporting others in implementing evidence-informed practices, policies and programs, and in sustaining and scaling evidence for population impact. They are not involved in direct service delivery or management and work closely with the leadership and staff needed to effectively deliver direct clinical, therapeutic or educational services to individuals, families and communities. They may be specialists or generalists and be located within and/or outside the delivery system they serve. To effectively support the implementation practice of others, implementation support practitioners require an ability to activate implementation-relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes, and to operationalize and apply these in the context of their support activities. In doing so, they aim to trigger both relational and behavioral outcomes. This thinking is reflected in an overarching logic outlined in this article.

CONCLUSION

The development of implementation support practitioners as a profession necessitates improved conceptual thinking about their role and work and how they enable the uptake and integration of evidence in real world settings. This article introduces a preliminary logic conceptualizing the role of implementation support practitioners informing research in progress aimed at increasing our knowledge about implementation support and the competencies needed to provide this support.