Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 May 6:10:30.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-30.

The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature

Trine Lignell Guldberg  1 , Torsten Lauritzen, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Peter Vedsted
Affiliations

The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature

Trine Lignell Guldberg et al. BMC Fam Pract. .

Abstract

Background: There have been numerous efforts to improve and assure the quality of treatment and follow-up of people with Type 2 diabetes (PT2D) in general practice. Facilitated by the increasing usability and validity of guidelines, indicators and databases, feedback on diabetes care is a promising tool in this aspect. Our goal was to assess the effect of feedback to general practitioners (GPs) on the quality of care for PT2D based on the available literature.

Methods: Systematic review searches were conducted using October 2008 updates of Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library and Embase databases. Additional searches in reference lists and related articles were conducted. Papers were included if published in English, performed as randomized controlled trials, studying diabetes, having general practice as setting and using feedback to GPs on diabetes care. The papers were assessed according to predefined criteria.

Results: Ten studies complied with the inclusion criteria. Feedback improved the care for PT2D, particularly process outcomes such as foot exams, eye exams and Hba1c measurements. Clinical outcomes like lowering of blood pressure, Hba1c and cholesterol levels were seen in few studies. Many process and outcome measures did not improve, while none deteriorated. Meta analysis was unfeasible due to heterogeneity of the studies included. Two studies used electronic feedback.

Conclusion: Based on this review, feedback seems a promising tool for quality improvement in diabetes care, but more research is needed, especially of electronic feedback.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Heathfield H, Pitty D, Hanka R. Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ. 1998;316:1959–1961. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thiru K, Hassey A, Sullivan F. Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care. BMJ. 2003;326:1070. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD000259. - PubMed
    1. Kristensen JK, Bak JF, Wittrup I, Lauritzen T. Diabetes prevalence and quality of diabetes care among Lebanese or Turkish immigrants compared to a native Danish population. Primary Care Diabetes. 2007;1:159–165. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2007.07.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dexheimer JW, Talbot TR, Sanders DL, Rosenbloom ST, Aronsky D. Prompting clinicians about preventive care measures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:311–320. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2555. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types