Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHeald, Adrian
dc.contributor.authorStedman, Mike
dc.contributor.authorLunt, Mark
dc.contributor.authorLivingston, Mark
dc.contributor.authorCortes, Gabriela
dc.contributor.authorGadsby, Roger
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-03T09:31:11Z
dc.date.available2023-11-03T09:31:11Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-24
dc.identifier.citationHeald A, Stedman M, Lunt M, Livingston M, Cortes G, Gadsby R. General practice (GP) level analysis shows that patients' own perceptions of support within primary care as reported in the GP patient survey (GPPS) are as important as medication and services in improving glycaemic control. Prim Care Diabetes. 2020 Feb;14(1):29-32.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1751-9918
dc.identifier.eissn1878-0210
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.pcd.2019.04.005
dc.identifier.pmid31133530
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/2772
dc.description.abstractBackground: The way that GP practices organize their services impacts as much on glycaemia in type 2 diabetes as does prescribing. Aim: Our aim was to evaluate the link between patients' own perception of support within primary care and the % patients at each GP practice at target glycaemic control (TGC) and at high glycaemic risk (HGR). Design and setting: Utilisation of National Diabetes Audit (NDA) available data combined with the General practitioner patient survey (GPPS). Method: The NDA 2016_17 published data on numbers of type 2 patients, levels of local diabetes services and the target glycaemic control (TGC) % and high glycaemic risk (HGR) % achieved. The GPPS 2017 published % "No" responses from long term condition (LTC) patients to the question "In the last 6 months, had you enough support from local services or organisations to help manage LTCs?". Multivariate regression was used on the set of indicators capturing patients' demographics and services provided. Results: 6498 practices were included (with more than 2.5 million T2DM patients) and median values with band limits that included 95% practices for % "No" response to the question above was 12% (2%-30%), for TGC 67% (54%-78%) and for HGR 6% (2%-13%). The model accounted for 25% TGC variance and 26% HGR variance. The standardised β values shown as (TGC/HGR) (+=more people; -=less people) for older age (+0.24/-0.25), sulphonylurea use (-0.21/+0.14), greater social disadvantage (-0.09/+0.21), GPPS Support %No (-0.08/+0.12), %Completion 8 checks (+0.09/-0.12) and metformin use (+0.11/-0.05). Conclusion: The relation between the person with diabetes and clinician in primary care is shown to be quantitatively potentially as important in influencing glycaemic outcome as the services provided and medication prescribed. We suggest that all of us in who work in the health care system can bear this in mind in our everyday work.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectDiabetesen_US
dc.titleGeneral practice (GP) level analysis shows that patients' own perceptions of support within primary care as reported in the GP patient survey (GPPS) are as important as medication and services in improving glycaemic controlen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitlePrimary Care Diabetes
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorLivingston, Mark
dc.contributor.departmentBlack Country Pathology Serviceen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Manchester; Salford Royal Hospital; Res Consortium; Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust; High Speciality Regional Hospital of Ixtapaluca; Warwick Medical Schoolen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record