Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: Excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Volumn 66, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 874-882

  Hassan Sadek, N ^a   Sadek, A R ^a   Tahir, A ^a   Khunti, K ^b   Desombre, T ^a   De Lusignan, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

ADULT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE REGISTRY; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RECORD; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; ONLINE SYSTEM; PATIENT CODING; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; UNITED KINGDOM; VIDEORECORDING; VOLUNTEER;

CLINICAL AUDIT; DATABASES AS TOPIC; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; GENERAL PRACTICE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REGISTRIES; REIMBURSEMENT, INCENTIVE;

EID: 84865269499     PISSN: 13685031     EISSN: 17421241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02979.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Gannon M, Qaseem A, Snow V,. Community-based primary care: improving and assessing diabetes management. Am J Med Qual 2010; 25: 6-12.
2. Valk GD, Renders CM, Kriegsman DM, et al. Quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands and the United States: a comparison of two quality improvement programs. Health Serv Res 2004; 39 (4 Pt 1): 709-25. (Pubitemid 38924675)
3. Gillett M, Dallosso HM, Dixon S, et al. Delivering the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2010; 341: c4093. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4093.
4. Beckles GL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH, Aubert RE, Williamson DF,. Population-based assessment of the level of care among adults with diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1432-8. (Pubitemid 28405192)
5. de Lusignan S, Sullivan F, Krause P,. Vault, cloud and agent: choosing strategies for quality improvement and research based on routinely collected health data. Inform Prim Care 2010; 18: 1-4.
6. de Lusignan S,. Computerised routinely collected primary care data: essential for patient access to records, quality improvement and research. Inform Prim Care 2010; 18: 5-7.
7. de Lusignan S, Khunti K, Belsey J, et al. A method of identifying and correcting miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis in diabetes: a pilot and validation study of routinely collected data. Diabet Med 2010; 27: 203-9.
8. Stone MA, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Wilkinson J, de Lusignan S, Hattersley AT, Khunti K,. Incorrect and incomplete coding and classification of diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med 2010; 27: 491-7.
9. RCGP NHS Diabetes. Coding, Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes. Leicester: Prontaprint, 2011.
10. MIQUEST User Manuals and queries data extraction: IAPT Study. In: Clinical Informatics SGsUoL, editor, 2010.
11. de Lusignan S, Sadek N, Mulnier H, Tahir A, Russell-Jones D, Khunti K,. Miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis of diabetes in primary care. Diabet Med 2012; 29: 181-9.
12. Hulscher ME, Laurant MG, Grol RP,. Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 40-6. (Pubitemid 36241255)
13. Dijkstra RF, Niessen LW, Braspenning JC, Adang E, Grol RT,. Patient-centred and professional-directed implementation strategies for diabetes guidelines: a cluster-randomized trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Diabet Med 2006; 23: 164-70.
14. Schouten LM, Niessen LW, van de Pas JW, Grol RP, Hulscher ME,. Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative focusing on patients with diabetes. Med Care 2010; 48: 884-91.
15. Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, Huijsman R, Niessen LW, Grol RP,. Short- and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on diabetes management. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 94.
16. Laurier E,. Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage Publications, 2003.
17. Farmer A, Fox R,. Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of diabetes. BMJ. 2011; 342: d3319. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3319.
18. Vamos EP, Pape UJ, Bottle A, et al. Association of practice size and pay-for-performance incentives with the quality of diabetes management in primary care. CMAJ 2011; 183: E809-16.
19. Michalakidis G, Kumarapeli P, Ring A, van Vlymen J, Krause P, de Lusignan S,. A system for solution-orientated reporting of errors associated with the extraction of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 (Pt 1): 724-8.
20. Kumarapeli P, Hague N, de Lusignan S,. User Manual for MIQUEST Data Extraction PCI-MH-08 Query Set. Primary Care Informatics, St. George's University of London. http://www.clininf.eu/iapt.html [Accessed June 2012]
21. Kumarapeli P, de Lusignan S, Robinson J,. Online resources for chronic kidney disease (CKD) for primary care. Inform Prim Care 2006; 14: 139-42. (Pubitemid 44687605)
22. Kumarapeli P, de Lusignan S,. Excel eGFR Calculator (for Multiple Calculations). http://www.clininf.eu/ckd (open the link to the Excel calculator-direct download http://www.clininf.eu/wrapped/gfr/gfr.xls[Accessed June 2012])
23. YouTube, Classification of Diabetes toolkit. http://www.youtube.com/user/ CoDAuditToolkit#p/ Accessed June 2012]
24. de Lusignan S, van Weel C,. The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam Pract 2006; 23: 253-63.
25. Sadek AR, van Vlymen J, Khunti K, de Lusignan S,. Automated identification of miscoded and misclassified cases of diabetes from computer records. Diabet Med 2012; 29: 410-4.