ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Valorar la repercusión de la alteración de la continuidad asistencial en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Material y método: Estudio de seguimiento entre los años 2018 y 2020 de los pacientes con DM2 de un centro de salud. Las actividades asistenciales y preventivas realizadas para su seguimiento fueron comparadas con pruebas estadísticas adecuadas al tipo y distribución de cada variable para un nivel de significación p≤0,05. Resultados: La muestra inicial fue de 587 pacientes con hemoglobina glicosilada (A1c) en 2018 (54% varones), con una edad de 66±11 años en un rango de 29-91 años. En 2020 disminuyeron todos los indicadores de atención: se determinó A1c al 68% de los pacientes (382/558 tras 29 fallecimientos); el 59% permanecía con buen control, el 17% con mal control, el 10% mejoró y el 14% empeoró (p<0,001). Empeoraron menos los pacientes que tenían realizados ECG y retinografía en 2018, aunque no en 2020, que aquellos que no los tenían en 2018, pero sí en 2020 (16 vs. 25%; p<0,001 y 13 vs. 42%; p=0,002). Quienes disminuyeron sus visitas al médico de familia y enfermera presentaron menor empeoramiento que los que las aumentaron (14 vs. 26%; p<0,001 y 17 vs. 23%; p<0,001). Conclusiones: La desatención impidió el control del 32% de los pacientes. El peor control en 2020 fue menor en quienes estaban controlados en 2018, y en quienes disminuyeron su asistencia al centro de salud en 2020. Probablemente una adecuada formación pre-pandémica en autocuidados ha llevado al empoderamiento del paciente durante periodo pandémico (AU)
Aim: To assess the impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and method: Follow-up study with 587 primary care patients with DM2, and control according to the redGDPS-2018 criteria in 2018 and 2020. Activities carried out and control status of patients were compared using statistical tests appropriate to type and distribution of each variable, for a significance level P≤.05. Results: Sample was made up of 587 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) in 2018 (54% men), age of 66±11, in range of 29-91 years. All the care indicators decreased in 2020: A1c was determined in 68% of patients (382/558 after 29 deaths); 59% remained with good control, 17% with poor control, 10% improved and 14% worsened (P<.001). Those who had ECG and retinography performed in 2018 and not in 2020 show a lower degree of worsening than those who did not have them done in 2018 but they did in 2020 (16% vs 25%, P<.001 and 13% vs 42%, P=.002). Those who decrease their visits to family doctor and nurse show less deterioration than those who increase them (14% vs 26%; P<.001 and 17% vs 23%; P<.001). Conclusions: Inattention impeded control of 32% of the patients. Poor control in 2020 was lower in those who were controlled in 2018, and who decreased their attendance at the health center in 2020. Possibly adequate pre-pandemic training in self-care has led to the empowerment of the patient during a pandemic period (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Continuity of Patient Care , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Coronavirus Infections , Pneumonia, Viral , Pandemics , Follow-Up StudiesABSTRACT
AIM: To assess the impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Follow-up study with 587 primary care patients with DM2, and control according to the redGDPS-2018 criteria in 2018 and 2020. Activities carried out and control status of patients were compared using statistical tests appropriate to type and distribution of each variable, for a significance level P≤.05. RESULTS: Sample was made up of 587 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) in 2018 (54% men), age of 66±11, in range of 29-91 years. All the care indicators decreased in 2020: A1c was determined in 68% of patients (382/558 after 29 deaths); 59% remained with good control, 17% with poor control, 10% improved and 14% worsened (P<.001). Those who had ECG and retinography performed in 2018 and not in 2020 show a lower degree of worsening than those who did not have them done in 2018 but they did in 2020 (16% vs 25%, P<.001 and 13% vs 42%, P=.002). Those who decrease their visits to family doctor and nurse show less deterioration than those who increase them (14% vs 26%; P<.001 and 17% vs 23%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inattention impeded control of 32% of the patients. Poor control in 2020 was lower in those who were controlled in 2018, and who decreased their attendance at the health center in 2020. Possibly adequate pre-pandemic training in self-care has led to the empowerment of the patient during a pandemic period.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Continuity of Patient Care , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , PandemicsABSTRACT
AIMS: Check the usefulness of ratio TG/HDL-C≥2.5 to improve the effectiveness of GLP-1 prescribing in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) in primary care, and determine whether any patient profile would higher benefit. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Barranco Grande Health Center, Tenerife. PARTICIPANTS: Random selection of patients with DM2 attended by 12 family doctors and 12 nurses. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Poor control according to the current criteria was compared to poor control according to the proposed rule. To determine who would benefit, the sociodemographic, clinical, therapeutic and follow-up characteristics were analyzed. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: No predominant characteristics were found in the patients who would be prescribed GLP-1 according to the proposed rule, but those that reached a significance P<.20 were included as potential explanatory factors in a multivariate binary logistic regression model. The adjustment of the model retained the factors of therapeutic non-compliance (OR 3.40 [1.58-5.02]; P=.003), evolution of DM2 less than 15 years (OR 2.74 [1.10-4.89]; P=.031), number of prescribed anti-diabetes drugs (OR 2.30 [1.88-2.81]; P<.001) and age under 65 years (OR 1.67 [1.08-2.58]; P=.021). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the rule that we propose for the prescription of GLP-1 (2018 recommendations of the GDPS network combined with the TG/HDL-C ratio≥2.5 or BMI≥30kg/m2), instead of the current criterion adopted by the National Health System, would allow to broaden the spectrum of application of the drug in patients with poor control of their DM2.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 , Humans , Prescriptions , Primary Health Care , TriglyceridesABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Quality of life of hypertensive patients (QOLHP) is associated with factors that are not always taken into account in the recommendations made by doctors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between QOLHP and physical exercise in an effectiveness approach, i.e. under the actual conditions of application of these treatments. METHODOLOGY: In a sample of 361 hypertensive patients registered in a primary care center in Tenerife, Spain, the QOLHP is measured using the PECVEC questionnaire. The main factor considered is physical exercise. In addition, we compiled a set of control variables: pharmacological and dietetic treatments, pathological, clinical, functional, psychological, social, lifestyle and demographic characteristic of the patients. We explored the association between all these factors and the QOLHP by adjusting multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: The PECVEC results were between 2.0 and 3.5, with an overall Cronbach's alpha reliability statistic of 0.88. From the sample, 58% of the patients engage in physical exercise, 75% maintain a anti-hypertension diet and 89% take hypertension medication. From all the treatments evaluated, only physical exercise is associated directly with all PECVEC scales, especially for women and patients over 65. CONCLUSIONS: Recommending the practice of physical exercise may be a useful tool for doctors to improve the QOLHP.
