ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: The delivery of ambulatory diabetes care to children and adolescents with diabetes

Pihoker, Catherine; Forsander, Gun; Fantahun, Bereket; Virmani, Anju; Corathers, Sarah; Benitez‐Aguirre, Paul; Fu, Junfen; Maahs, David M.

doi:10.1111/pedi.12757

Cited by 102 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 132 publications

(223 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ISPAD guidelines recommend that all patients with T1D have their care reviewed every 3 months . The greatest advantage of telemedicine is the ability to provide access to specialized care in remote locations.…”

Section: Telehealthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ISPAD guidelines recommend that all patients with T1D have their care reviewed every 3 months. 282 The greatest advantage of telemedicine is the ability to provide access to specialized care in remote locations. Reduction in traveling costs and saved working days for parents and school days for children may overcome some of the barriers to adhering to the frequency of follow-up recommended.…”

Section: Telemedicine Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Telehealthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Telemedicine Advantages and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The organization and aims of diabetes camps have been described in detail in the ISPAD Guideline for the delivery of ambulatory care. 56 Educational activities at camp are most effective if they are matched to gender and age and embody empowerment principles. 57 Benefits include the opportunity for youth to foster relationships and share experiences in a safe environment, 58…”

Section: Diabetes Education Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes education in children and adolescents

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We suggest the international emphasis on the need for integration of healthcare, particularly for children with complex chronic conditions, provides an opportunity to address the vulnerabilities our survey has identified in England, and which are likely to exist in other settings where diabetic eye care is delivered outside pediatric services. Like all children with chronic medical conditions, those living with diabetes require the input of multiple specialists and services but also face the additional challenge of comprising only a small proportion of the total population with this condition and consequently are at risk of receiving adult‐centered care when they are seen by non‐pediatric specialists …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerabilities in diabetic eye screening for children and young people in England

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Children and young people (CYP) living with diabetes require integrated child‐centered care. We hypothesized that suboptimal uptake to diabetic retinopathy screening in CYP may be partly related to the degree of services integration. We investigated the structure of the current pediatric diabetic eye care pathway and associations between service‐level characteristics and screening uptake. Methods A quality improvement project between January and May 2017 comprising a survey of practice of all 158 pediatric diabetes services (pediatric diabetes units, PDUs) across England and secondary data analysis of routinely collected service data. Generalized linear models for proportional responses were fitted to investigate associations between reported PDU characteristics and screening uptake. Results 124 PDUs (78%) responded. In 67% (n = 83), patients could be referred directly to screening programs; the remainder relied on primary care for onward referral. 97% (n = 120) considered eye screening results useful for counseling patients but only 65% (n = 81) reported it was “easy” to obtain them. Factors independently associated with higher screening uptake were a higher proportion of patients referred from primary care (OR = 1.005; 95%CI = 1.004‐1.007 per 1% of increase), absence of “out‐of‐catchment area” patients (OR = 1.13; 95%CI = 1.04‐1.22), and easy access to eye screening results (OR = 1.45; 95%CI = 1.34‐1.56). Conclusions There is limited direct communication between the services involved in diabetic eye care for CYP in England. This risks reducing the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening. Similar vulnerabilities are likely to exist in other countries where retinopathy screening for CYP has been “bolted on” to provision for adults.

show abstract

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: The delivery of ambulatory diabetes care to children and adolescents with diabetes

Cited by 102 publications

References 132 publications

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes education in children and adolescents

Vulnerabilities in diabetic eye screening for children and young people in England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About