scholarly journals Patients' perceptions of nutrition care provided by general practitioners: focus on Type 2 diabetes

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Ball ◽  
R. Hughes ◽  
B. Desbrow ◽  
M. Leveritt
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Nutrition Care

The management of Type 2 diabetes: A survey of Australian general practitioners

2012 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jiwa ◽  
X. Meng ◽  
D. Sriram ◽  
J. Hughes ◽  
S. Colagiuri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners

scholarly journals General Practitioners’ Barriers to Prescribe Physical Activity: The Dark Side of the Cluster Effects on the Physical Activity of Their Type 2 Diabetes Patients

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e0140429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Lanhers ◽  
Martine Duclos ◽  
Aline Guttmann ◽  
Emmanuel Coudeyre ◽  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Diabetes Patients

scholarly journals Use Of The GLYCEMIZER® Tool By General Practitioners To Meet Individual Glycated Hemoglobin Goals In Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Byron Hatziisaak ◽  
Telemachos Hatziisaak ◽  
Urs Keller
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Glycated Hemoglobin ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Hba1c Levels

Background — For general practitioners (GPs), it is often not easy to determine the individual glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)-goal of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in order to offer them a tailored treatment and minimize side effects. Usually, they simply rely on their gut feeling. Objective — We assessed the usefulness of an easy-to-use algorithm (GLYCEMIZER®) to calculate individual HbA1c-goals and compared them with targeted (‘gut feeling’ of the GP’s) and achieved levels. Material and Methods — In this cross-sectional survey, general practitioners were asked to report anonymized data of at least 30 consecutive patients with T2DM presenting in their offices from May 1st to August 15th 2016 after obtaining informed consent. Demographic, clinical and biochemical data were used for the GLYCEMIZER® tool to calculate the individual HbA1c-goals. A statistical analysis was conducted in order to compare the calculated HbA1c-goals with targeted and achieved HbA1c-levels. Results — A total of 184 patients (mean age: 69y) were enrolled by 6 participating general practitioners from the Werdenberg-Sarganserland region in eastern Switzerland. Four patients did not meet the inclusion criteria. The overall median calculated HbA1c-goal did not differ from the targeted and achieved levels (7.1% vs. 7.0% vs. 7.1%, p=0.894). There was a significant difference between achieved and calculated HbA1c-levels in patients aged <50 (n=13, median 7.2% vs. 6.5%, p=0.014), goals not achieved) and patients aged >71 (n=85, median 6.9% vs. 7.5%, p=0.005), lower levels achieved in relation to calculated HbA1c-goals). Both in patients treated with insulin (n=44) and in patients without insulin (n=136) the achieved HbA1c-levels met the calculated goals (no insulin: 6.9% vs. 7.0%, ns; with insulin: 7.8% vs. 7.7%, ns). In regard to CKD-stages 3 and 4 the achieved HbA1c-levels were significantly lower than calculated (n= 41, median 6.9% vs. 7.6%, p=0.001). Conclusion — Calculating HbA1c-goals using the GLYCEMIZER tool is more accurate than relying on gut feeling alone, and is specifically useful in the treatment of patients with T2DM of less than 50, as well as more than 70 years of age. Furthermore, it is helpful to meet individual HbA1c-goals in patients with CKD-stages 3+.

scholarly journals Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Survey in Management of Type 2 Diabetes by General Practitioners in Dakar

2017 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 294-301
Author(s):  
Abdoulaye Leye ◽  
Nafy Ndiaye ◽  
Ngoné Diaba Diack ◽  
Michel Assane Ndour ◽  
Biram Codou Fall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Knowledge Attitudes And Practices

scholarly journals Prevalence of amputations amongst people with type 2 diabetes enrolled in primary care in England

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Meza-Torres ◽  
C Heiss ◽  
S Cunningham ◽  
F Carinci ◽  
S de Lusignan
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Distinct Pattern ◽  
National Database ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Clinical Records

Abstract Background Different patterns of co-morbidities observed among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and lower extremity amputations (LEA) compared with those without may provide insights into the quality of care provided by general practitioners in England. We analysed routinely recorded clinical data to build predictive models for benchmarking and continuous improvement. Methods A cross-sectional computerized data extraction of clinical records from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database of people with T2D in England. Key target cases were defined as adults with T2D and a record of major/minor LEA between 2008-2019 vs all subjects with T2D without amputation. Quality of care was assessed in terms of percentage of patients treated with optimal medical therapy and diagnostic procedures and referred to specialized care according to their clinical profile. The association between quality of care and outcomes was explored using a logistic regression model, adjusting for case-mix. Results During the last decade, in a sample covering approximately 7.4% of all general practitioners in England, a total of 1,052 subjects out of 127,100 adults with T2D had a LEA (832 per 100,000). The median time since amputation was 3.4 years. Only 410 (38%) patients had a recorded DFU diagnosis prior to the amputation, with a median of 2 years from diagnosis to amputation. Major LEA was recorded in 280 (27%) cases. People with a record of retinopathy, peripheral arterial disease, renal disease, neuropathy and DFU had a higher risk of amputations. Quality of care was heterogeneous between patients with and without LEA. Conclusions People with T2D and LEA have a distinct pattern of co-morbidities some of which may be sensitive to improved primary care management, and differential quality of care. Models built using this national database can routinely monitor amputations in England. Variation in treatment should be properly investigated. Key messages The automated extraction of clinical cases from a national database may help shed light on clinical patterns among people with diabetes at high risk of amputations, based on evidence-based criteria. Variation in treatment and quality of care among amputated vs non-amputated subjects can be rapidly explored using a cross-sectional analysis of current records.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document