The impact of a diabetes local enhanced service on quality outcome framework diabetes outcomes

Background The rising challenge of diabetes requires novel service delivery approaches. In the UK, Local Enhanced Services (LES) have been commissioned for diabetes. Health professionals from general practices (GPs) who signed up to LES were given additional training (and a monetary incentive) to i...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Choudhury, S. (Author), Hussain, S. (Author), Yao, G. (Author), Hill, J. (Author), Malik, W. (Author), Taheri, S. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2013-12-17.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 02489 am a22001933u 4500
001 365039
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Choudhury, S.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Hussain, S.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Yao, G.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Hill, J.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Malik, W.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Taheri, S.  |e author 
245 0 0 |a The impact of a diabetes local enhanced service on quality outcome framework diabetes outcomes 
260 |c 2013-12-17. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/365039/1/fetchObject.action_uri%253Dinfo_doi%25252F10.1371%25252Fjournal.pone.0083738%2526representation%253DPDF 
520 |a Background The rising challenge of diabetes requires novel service delivery approaches. In the UK, Local Enhanced Services (LES) have been commissioned for diabetes. Health professionals from general practices (GPs) who signed up to LES were given additional training (and a monetary incentive) to improve management of patients with diabetes. All practices in the PCT were invited to the LES initiative, which ensured avoiding selection bias. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of LES in terms of diabetes Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) indicators: DM23(glycaemia), DM17(lipid) and DM12(blood pressure; BP). Methods QOF diabetes indicators were examined using data from 76 general practices for 2009-2010 in a large primary care trust area in Birmingham, UK. Data were extracted from Quality Management Analysis System. The primary outcome was a difference in achievement of QOF indicators between LES and NLES practices. A secondary outcome was the difference between LES and non-LES practices for hospital first and follow-up appointments. Results We did not find any difference for DM12(BP) and DM17(lipid) outcomes between LES and NLES practices. However, LES practices were more likely to achieve the DM23(glycaemia) outcome (estimated odds 1.459;95% CI:1.378-1.544; P=0.0001). The probability of achieving satisfactory level of DM23(glycaemia) increased by almost 10% when GPs belonged to LES groups compared with GPs in NLES group. LES practices were less likely to refer patients to secondary care. Conclusion Overall, LES practices performed better in the achievement of DM23(glycaemia) and also referred fewer patients to hospital, thereby meeting their objectives. This suggests that the LES approach is beneficial and needs to be further explored in order to ascertain whether the impact exerted was due to LES. 
540 |a other 
655 7 |a Article