Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Tony Fitzgerald, Marie Therese Cooney, Alexandra Dudina European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Alec Vahanian (Chairperson), John Camm, Raffaele De Caterina, Veronica Dean, Kenneth Dickstein, Christian Funck-Brentano, Gerasimos Filippatos, Irene Hellemans, Steen Dalby Kristensen, Keith McGregor, Udo Sechtem, Sigmund Silber, Michal Tendera, Petr Widimsky, Jose Luis Zamorano Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Co-ordinator), Attila Altiner, Enzo Bonora, Paul N. Durrington, Robert Fagard, Simona Giampaoli, Harry Hemingway, Jan Hakansson, Sverre Erik Kjeldsen, Mogens Lytken Larsen, Giuseppe Mancia, Athanasios J. Manolis, Kristina Orth-Gomer, Terje Pedersen, Mike Rayner, Lars Ryden, Mario Sammut, Neil Schneiderman, Anton F. Stalenhoef, Lale Tokgözoglu, Olov Wiklund, Antonis Zampelas

Четвертая объединенная рабочая группа Европейского общества кардиологов и других обществ по профилактике сердечно-сосудистых заболеваний в клинической практике* Авторы (члены рабочей группы

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Schoonhoven (The Netherlands), Tony Fitzgerald, Dublin (Ireland), Marie Therese Cooney, Dublin (Ireland), Alexandra Dudina, Dublin (Ireland) European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG):, Alec Vahanian (Chairperson) (France), John Camm (UK), Raffaele De Caterina (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), Christian Funck-Brentano (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Irene Hellemans (The Netherlands), Steen Dalby Kristensen (Denmark), Keith McGregor (France), Udo Sechtem (Germany), Sigmund Silber (Germany), Michal Tendera (Poland), Petr Widimsky (Czech Republic), José Luis Zamorano (Spain) Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Coordinator) (The Netherlands), Attila Altiner (Germany), Enzo Bonora (Italy), Paul N. Durrington (UK), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Simona Giampaoli(Italy), Harry Hemingway (UK), Jan Hakansson (Sweden), Sverre Erik Kjeldsen (Norway), Mogens Lytken Larsen (Denmark), Giuseppe Mancia (Italy), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Kristina Orth-Gomer (Sweden), Terje Pedersen (Norway), Mike Rayner (UK), Lars Ryden (Sweden), Mario Sammut (Malta), Neil Schneiderman (USA), Anton F. Stalenhoef (The Netherlands), Lale Tokgözoglu (Turkey), Olov Wiklund (Sweden), Antonis Zampelas (Greece)

ObjectiveTo assess the status of type 2 diabetes care in general practice and changes in the quality of care between 2005 and 2014, and to identify areas of diabetes care requiring improvement.Research design and methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were performed that included patients with type 2 diabetes in selected areas (n=9464 in 2014, n=5463 in 2005). Quality of care was assessed based on key recommendations in national guidelines. Differences in clinical performance between 2005 and 2014 were assessed in regression models adjusting for age, sex, counties and clustering within general practices.ResultsTreatment targets were achieved in a higher proportion of patients in 2014 compared with 2005: hemoglobin A1c ≤7.0% (≤53 mmol/mol) in 62.8% vs 54.3%, blood pressure ≤135/80 mm Hg in 44.9% vs 36.6%, and total cholesterol ≤4.5 mmol/L in 49.9% vs 33.5% (all adjusted P≤0.001). Regarding screening procedures for microvascular complications, fewer patients had recorded an eye examination (61.0% vs 71.5%, adjusted P<0.001), whereas more patients underwent monofilament test (25.9% vs 18.7%, adjusted P<0.001). Testing for albuminuria remained low (30.3%) in 2014. A still high percentage were current smokers (22.7%).ConclusionsWe found moderate improvements in risk factor control for patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice during the last decade, which are similar to improvements reported in other countries. We report major gaps in the performance of recommended screening procedures to detect microvascular complications. The proportion of daily smokers remains high. We suggest incentives to promote further improvements in diabetes care in Norway.

No abstract

Aims: To explore variation in general practitioners' (GPs') performance of six recommended procedures in type 2 diabetes patients <75 years without cardiovascular disease. Methods: Cross-sectional study of quality of diabetes care in Norway based on electronic health records from 2014. GPs (clustered in practices) were divided in quintiles based on a composite measure of performance of six processes of care. We fitted a multilevel partial ordinal regression model to identify GP factors associated with being in quintiles with better performance. Results: We identified 6015 type 2 diabetes patients from 275 GPs in 77 practices. The GPs performed on average 63.4% of the procedures; on average 46% in the poorest quintile to 81% in the best quintile with a larger range in individual GPs. After adjustments, use of a structured follow-up form was associated with GPs being in upper three quintiles (OR 12.4 (95% CI 2.37-65.1). Routines for reminders were associated with being in a better quintile . GPs' age >60 years and heavier workload were associated with poorer performance. Conclusion:We found large variations in GPs' performance of processes of care. Factors reflecting structure and workload were strongly associated with performance.

Objective: To explore the associations between general practitioners (GPs) characteristics such as gender, specialist status, country of birth and country of graduation and the quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting and subjects: The 277 GPs provided care for 10082 patients with T2DM in Norway in 2014. The GPs characteristics were self-reported: 55% were male, 68% were specialists in General Practice, 82% born in Norway and 87% had graduated in Western Europe. Of patients, 81% were born in Norway and 8% in South Asia. Data regarding diabetes care were obtained from electronic medical records and manually verified. Main outcome measures: Performance of recommended screening procedures, prescribed medication and level of HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol stratified according to GPs characteristics, adjusted for patient and GP characteristics. Result: Female GPs, specialists, GPs born in Norway and GPs who graduated in Western Europe performed recommended procedures more frequently than their counterparts. Specialists achieved lower mean HbA1c (7.14% vs. 7.25%, p < 0.01), a larger proportion of their patients achieved good glycaemic control (HbA1c = 6.0%–7.0%) (49.1% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.018) and lower mean systolic blood pressure (133.0 mmHg vs. 134.7 mmHg, p < 0.01) compared with non-specialists. GPs who graduated in Western Europe achieved lower diastolic blood pressure than their counterparts (76.6 mmHg vs. 77.8 mmHg, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Several quality indicators for type 2 diabetes care were better if the GPs were specialists in General Practice.Key PointsResearch on associations between General Practitioners (GPs) characteristics and quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes is limited.Specialists in General Practice performed recommended procedures more frequently, achieved better HbA1c and blood pressure levels than non-specialists.GPs who graduated in Western Europe performed screening procedures more frequently and achieved lower diastolic blood pressure compared with their counterparts.There were few significant differences in the quality of care between GP groups according to their gender and country of birth.

Objective: To explore the experiences of general practitioners (GPs), nurses and medical secretaries in providing multi-professional diabetes care and their perceptions of professional roles. Design, setting and subjects: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six GPs, three nurses and two medical secretaries from five purposively sampled diabetes teams. Interviews were analysed thematically. Main outcome measures: Healthcare professionals' (HCPs') experiences of multi-professional diabetes care in general practice. Results: The involvement of nurses and medical secretaries (collaborating health care professionals) was mainly motivated by GPs' time pressure and their perception of diabetes care as easy to standardize. GPs reported that diabetes care had become more structured and continuous after the involvement of collaborating health care professionals (cHCPs). cHCPs defined their role differently from GPs, emphasizing that their approach included acknowledging patients' need for diabetes education, listening to their stories and meeting their need for emotional support. GPs appeared less involved in patients' emotional concerns and more focused on the biomedical aspects of illness. There was little emphasis on teamwork among GPs and cHCPs, and none of the practices used care plans to involve patients in decisions or unify treatment among professionals. Participants stated that institutional structures including a discriminatory remuneration system, lack of role descriptions and missing procedures for collaborative approaches were an obstacle to MPC. Conclusions: cHCPs worked independently under delegated leadership of the GPs. Although cHCPs had a complementary role, HCPs in general practice may not take full advantage of the potential of sharing patient responsibility and learning with, from and about each other. Contextual barriers for team-based care approaches should be addressed in future research.