Values informing the development of an indicator of appropriate diabetes therapy: qualitative study
- PMID: 33268435
- PMCID: PMC7713200
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044395
Values informing the development of an indicator of appropriate diabetes therapy: qualitative study
Abstract
Objectives: Despite increasing focus on individualised diabetes management, current diabetes quality measures are based on meeting generic haemoglobin A1c thresholds and do not reflect considerations of clinical complexity, hypoglycaemic susceptibility or treatment burden. Our team observed a multidisciplinary stakeholder panel tasked with informing an appropriate diabetes therapy indicator (ADTI) and analysed their deliberations, seeking to understand what constitutes appropriate diabetes therapy and how it can be captured using an operational quality indicator. We focused specifically on factors the panel valued in an ideal indicator, how they defined appropriateness and how they thought an indicator of appropriateness could be operationalised.
Design: Qualitative study examining Delphi panel deliberations as it iteratively refined the ADTI.
Participants and methods: The 12-member panel was comprised of clinicians (endocrinology, primary care, geriatrics), pharmacists, nurses, researchers, and representatives of public and private health plans. It met for four teleconference calls and deliberated asynchronously using semi-structured questionnaires following each call to develop the ADTI. These semistructured questionnaires, as well as the meeting minutes, were then analysed using an inductive thematic approach.
Results: We identified three themes in panellist discussions that represented the core value systems underpinning the indicator and its formation: (1) promoting individualised, evidence-based and equitable care; (2) balancing autonomy and prescriptiveness in clinical decision-making; and (3) ensuring an accurate, reliable and practical indicator. These three principles were operationalised into definitions of treatment intensity and clinical complexity, and yielded an indicator that participants judged both fair and effective.
Conclusions: Better understanding of what multidisciplinary stakeholders perceive as appropriate diabetes management can help develop quality indicators that are patient-centred, evidence-based, equitable and pragmatic across a range of clinical settings.
Keywords: general diabetes; qualitative research; quality in health care.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures
References
-
- NICE National Institute for health and care excellence pathways: managing blood glucose in Aults with type 2 diabetes: National Institute for health and care excellence, 2019. Available: https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/type-2-diabetes-in-adults [Accessed 23 Apr 2019].
-
- Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. . Consensus statement by the american association of clinical endocrinologists and american college of endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm - 2019 executive summary. Endocr Pract 2019;25:69–100. 10.4158/CS-2018-0535 - DOI - PubMed
-
- MNCM Minnesota community measurement data collection guide: optimal diabetes care specifications, 2019 report year (01/01/2018 to 12/31/2018 dates of service). Minneapolis, MN; 2018.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous