Skip to main content

Associations between attainment of incentivized primary care indicators and incident sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy

Our new study published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism shows a lower incidence of sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes who meet QOF targets for HBA1c, blood pressure and lipid control. 

We aimed to examine the impact of attainment of primary care diabetes clinical indicators on progression to sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) among those with mild non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR). 

We carried out a historical cohort study of 18,978 adults (43.63% female) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before 1 April 2010 and mild NPDR before 1 April 2011 was conducted. The data were obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 2010‐2017, provided by 330 primary care practices in England. Exposures included attainment of the Quality and Outcomes Framework HbA1c (≤59 mmol/mol [≤7.5%]), blood pressure (≤140/80 mmHg) and cholesterol (≤5 mmol/L) indicators in the financial year 2010‐2011, as well as the number of National Diabetes Audit processes completed in 2010‐2011. The outcome was time to incident STDR. Nearest neighbour propensity score matching was undertaken, and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were then fitted using the matched samples. Concordance statistics were calculated for each model.

A total of 1037 (5.5%) STDR diagnoses were observed over a mean follow‐up of 3.6 (SD 2.0) years. HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol indicator attainment were associated with lower rates of STDR (adjusted hazard ratios [95% CI] 0.64 [0.55‐0.74; p < .001], 0.83 [0.72‐0.94; p = .005] and 0.80 [0.66‐0.96; p = .015], respectively).

Our findings provide support for meeting appropriate indicators for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care to bring a range of benefits, including improved health outcomes—such as a reduction in the risk of STDR—for people with type 2 diabetes.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14344



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
1 comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more