Does size matter? Hospital volume and resource use in paediatric diabetes care.

AIMS: Paediatric diabetes care has become increasingly specialised due to the multidisciplinary approach and technological developments. Guidelines recommend sufficient experience of treatment teams. This study evaluates associations between hospital volume and resource use and hospital expenditure in Dutch children with diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using hospital claims data of 5082 children treated across 44 Dutch hospitals (2019-2020). Hospitals were categorised into three categories; small (≥20-100 patients), medium (≥100-200 patients) and large (≥200 patients). All-cause hospitalisations, consultations, technology and hospital expenditure were analysed and adjusted for age, sex, socio-economic status (SES) and hospital of treatment. RESULTS: Fewer hospitalisations were observed in large hospitals compared to small hospitals (OR 0.48; [95% CI 0.32-0.72]; p < 0.001). Median number of yearly paediatrician visits was 7 in large and 6 in small hospitals, the significance of which was attenuated in multilevel analysis (OR ≥7 consultations: 1.89; [95%CI 0.74-4.83]; p = 0.18). Technology use varies between individual hospitals, whereas pump usage and real-time continuous glucose monitoring showed no significant differences between hospital volumes. Mean overall expenditure was highest in medium-sized centres with €6434 per patient (IQR €2555-7955); the difference in diabetes care costs was not significant between hospital patient volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Care provision patterns vary by hospital patient volume. Large hospitals had the lowest hospitalisation rates. The use of diabetes technology was not different between hospital patient volumes. Medium-sized hospitals showed the highest overall expenditure, but diabetes care costs were similar across hospital volumes.

Socio-economic disparities in hospital care among Dutch patients with diabetes mellitus.

AIM: Socio-economic status (SES) influences diabetes onset, progression and treatment. In this study, the associations between SES and use of hospital care were assessed, focusing on hospitalizations, technology and cardiovascular complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational cohort study comprising 196 695 patients with diabetes (all types and ages) treated in 65 hospitals across the Netherlands from 2019 to 2020 using reimbursement data. Patients were stratified in low, middle, or high SES based on residential areas derived from four-digit zip codes. RESULTS: Children and adults with low SES were hospitalized more often than patients with middle or high SES (children: 22%, 19% and 15%, respectively; p < .001, adults: 28%, 25% and 23%; p < .001). Patients with low SES used the least technology: no technology in 48% of children with low SES versus 40% with middle SES and 38% with high SES. In children, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) use was higher in high SES {CSII: odds ratio (OR) 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-1.76]; p < .001; rtCGM OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.20-1.61]; p < .001} and middle SES [CSII: OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.24-1.62); p < .001; rtCGM: OR 1.27 (95% CI 1.09-1.47); p = .002] compared with low SES. Macrovascular (OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.80); p < .001) and microvascular complications [OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.98); p < .001] occurred less in high than in low SES. CONCLUSIONS: Socio-economic disparities were observed in patients with diabetes treated in Dutch hospitals, where basic health care is covered. Patients with low SES were hospitalized more often, used less technology, and adults with high SES showed fewer cardiovascular complications. These inequities warrant attention to guarantee equal outcomes for all.

Use of hospital care among Dutch diabetes patients.

AIM: To provide insight into healthcare resource utilization and hospital expenditure of patients treated for diabetes in Dutch hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of 193 840 patients aged ≥18 years and treated for diabetes mellitus in 65 Dutch hospitals in 2019 to 2020, using real-world reimbursement data. Consultations, hospitalizations, technology use, total hospital and diabetes care costs (encompassing all care for diabetes itself) were assessed during 1-year follow-up. In addition, expenditure was compared with that in the general Dutch population. RESULTS: Total hospital costs for all patients with diabetes were €1 352 690 257 (1.35 billion) per year, and 15.9% (€214 963 703) was associated with treatment of diabetes. Mean yearly costs per patient were €6978, with diabetes care costs of €1109. Mean hospital costs of patients exceeded that of the Dutch population three- to sixfold. Total hospital costs increased with age, whereas diabetes expenditure decreased with age (18-40 years, €1575; >70 years, €932). Of all patients with diabetes, 51.3% (n = 99 457) received care related to cardiovascular complications. Micro- and macrovascular complications, or a combination, increased hospital costs (1.4-5.3 times higher). CONCLUSIONS: The hospital resource use of Dutch diabetes patients is high, with a large burden of cardiovascular complications. Resource use is rooted mainly in hospital care of diabetes-related complications, not in the treatment of diabetes. Early treatment and prevention of complications remain imperative to taper future healthcare expenditure on patients with diabetes.

Healthcare expenditure and technology use in pediatric diabetes care.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood. With more advanced care options including ever-evolving technology, allocation of resources becomes increasingly important to guarantee equal care for all. Therefore, we investigated healthcare resource utilization, hospital costs, and its determinants in Dutch children with diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational analysis with hospital claims data of 5,474 children with diabetes mellitus treated in 64 hospitals across the Netherlands between 2019-2020. RESULTS: Total hospital costs were €33,002,652 per year, and most of these costs were diabetes-associated (€28,151,381; 85.3%). Mean annual diabetes costs were €5,143 per child, and treatment-related costs determined 61.8%. Diabetes technology significantly increased yearly diabetes costs compared to no technology: insulin pumps € 4,759 (28.7% of children), Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring € 7,259 (2.1% of children), and the combination of these treatment modalities € 9,579 (27.3% of children). Technology use increased treatment costs significantly (5.9 - 15.3 times), but lower all-cause hospitalisation rates were observed. In all age groups, diabetes technology use influenced healthcare consumption, yet in adolescence usage decreased and consumption patterns changed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that contemporary hospital costs of children with diabetes of all ages are driven primarily by the treatment of diabetes, with technology use as an important additive factor. The expected rise in technology use in the near future underlines the importance of insight into resource use and cost-effectiveness studies to evaluate if improved outcomes balance out these short-term costs of modern technology.

DPARD: rationale, design and initial results from the Dutch national diabetes registry.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of diabetes mellitus has majorly improved over the past century, however, the disease burden is high and its prevalence still expanding. Further insight in the diabetes population is imperative to improve the quality of diabetes care by enhancement of knowledge-based diabetes management strategies. To this end, in 2017 a Dutch nationwide consortium of diabetologists, paediatric endocrinologists, and diabetes patients has founded a national outpatient diabetes care registry named Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes (DPARD). We aim to describe the implementation of DPARD and to provide an overview of the characteristics of patients included during the first 2 years. METHODS: For the DPARD cohort with long-term follow-up of observational nature, hospital data are gathered directly from electronic health records and securely transferred and stored. DPARD provides weekly updated clinical information on the diabetes population care on a hospital-level benchmarked against the national average. RESULTS: Between November 2017 and January 2020, 20,857 patients were included from 8 (11%) Dutch hospitals with a level of care distribution representative of all diabetic outpatients in the Netherlands. Among patients with known diabetes type, 41% had type 1 diabetes, 51% type 2 diabetes, and 8% had diabetes due to other causes. Characteristics of the total patient population were similar to patients with unknown diabetes classification. HbA1c levels decreased over the years, while BMI levels showed an increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: The national DPARD registry aims to facilitate investigation of prevalence and long-term outcomes of Dutch outpatients with diabetes mellitus and their treatment, thus allowing for quality improvement of diabetes care as well as allowing for comparison of diabetes care on an international level.

Potency of quality indicators in Dutch and international diabetes registries.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus forms a slow pandemic. Cardiovascular risk and quality of diabetes care are strongly associated. Quality indicators improve diabetes management and reduce mortality and costs. Various national diabetes registries render national quality indicators. We describe diabetes care indicators for Dutch children and adults with diabetes, and compare them with indicators established by registries worldwide. METHODS: Indicator scores were derived from the Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes Indicator sets of other national diabetes registries were collected and juxtaposed with global and continental initiatives for indicator sets. RESULTS: This observational cohort study included 3738 patients representative of the Dutch diabetic outpatient population. The Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes harbors ten quality indicators comprising treatment volumes, HbA1c control, foot examination, insulin pump therapy, and real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Worldwide, nine national registries record quality indicators, with great variety between registries. HbA1c control is recorded most frequently, and no indicator is reported among all registries. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variety among quality indicators recorded by national diabetes registries hinders international comparison and interpretation of quality of diabetes care. The potential of quality evaluation will be greatly enhanced when diabetes care indicators are aligned in an international standard set with variation across countries taken into consideration.

Gender gaps in type 1 diabetes care.

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus is one of the largest global health concerns of recent times. Women with diabetes mellitus have a higher excess risk of all-cause mortality and more vascular events than men. Focusing on type 1 diabetes, this could be caused by gender inequalities in delivered diabetes care. This study aims to assess gender differences in type 1 diabetes outpatient care, particularly diagnostics and outcomes. METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study included all adult type 1 diabetes patients in the Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes (DPARD) visiting diabetes outpatient clinics between 2016-2021. The frequency of process measurements, including physical examination and laboratory testing, was assessed among both sexes after adjustment for age and body mass index. Gender differences in eGFR ≥ 60, BMI-, and control in blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol were evaluated. Hospital variation in achieving HbA1c targets of 53 mmol/mol and median HbA1c were assessed. Cardiovascular risk scores were calculated in men and women using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) European low-risk chart. RESULTS: Our study showed a 17% higher odds of reaching weight control and a 23% lower odds of achieving blood pressure targets in men than women. Gender-skewed cardiovascular mortality risk scores were found. Gender disparities in outcomes appear not to be caused by gender-biased attitudes in healthcare professionals since no gender differences were found in the performance of process measurements in type 1 diabetes care. In addition, hospitals appear to vary by extent of gender differences in achieving a target HbA1c of 53 mmol/mol. CONCLUSION: Gender equality exists in the diagnostic process of diabetes care. However, differences in weight control, blood pressure control, and cardiovascular mortality risk scores remain between both sexes, most likely due to multifactorial causes. Indications for interhospital variation in gender disparities in HbA1c control exist. Further focus on performance of process measurements between hospitals may identify areas for improvement of gender-skewed outcomes to further enhance Dutch diabetes care for both sexes.

Effects of COVID-19 on diabetes care among dutch diabetes outpatients.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted diabetes care by reducing diabetes outpatient visits and diabetes-related screening due to allocation of healthcare resources. Yet the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes outpatients has not been extensively evaluated. This study aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostics and intermediate outcomes of outpatient diabetes care pre- and during COVID. METHODS: This observational cohort study included 8,442 diabetes patients in the Dutch Pediatric and Adult Registry of Diabetes (DPARD) visiting diabetes outpatient clinics in 2019 and 2021. A mixed-effects regression analysis was used to examine differences in target achievement of HbA1c, BMI, blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol, eGFR, and the difference in mean HbA1c between 2019 and 2020 among n = 1,426 outpatients who visited in both years. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and BMI. RESULTS: A 22.7% (21.6-23.8%, p < 0.001) decline in outpatient volume was observed during the pandemic (2020). BMI, lipid spectrum, kidney function, and HbA1c were assessed less frequently in 2020 than in 2019. In 2020, compared to 2019, the median HbA1c level increased by 2.2% (1.0 mmol/mol, p = 0.035) and the percentages of patients with known HbA1C meeting targets below 10, 8, 7% (86, 64, and 53 mmol/mol) decreased by 0.5%, 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively. Target blood pressure ≤ 130/80 mmHg was achieved more often in 2020 (15.0% versus 18.3%, p = 0.018), while HbA1c ≤ 86 mmol/mol was achieved less (89.3% versus 87.1%, p = 0.001), among diabetes outpatients seen in both 2019 and 2020. In patients visiting both years, HbA1c was 2.3% (1.9 mmol/l, 95% CI 1.2-2.5, p < 0.001) lower during the pandemic than in the prepandemic (2019). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID pandemic was associated with a marked reduction in patient volume in diabetes outpatient care among five hospitals. Among patients who received outpatient care both before and during the pandemic period, HbA1c control and blood pressure control enhanced during the pandemic. Re-evaluation of current diabetes outpatient care organization is warranted to ensure optimal diabetes care in future times.

National diabetes registries: do they make a difference?

AIMS: The global epidemic of diabetes mellitus continues to expand, including its large impact on national health care. Measuring diabetes outcomes and their causes of variation highlights areas for improvement in care and efficiency gains; large registries carry this potential. By means of a systematic review, we aimed to give an overview of national registries worldwide by quantifying their data and assessing their influence on diabetes care. METHODS: The literature on MEDLINE up to March 31, 2020, was searched, using keywords diabetes mellitus, national, registry, registration, and/or database. National disease-specific registries from corresponding articles were included. Database characteristics and clinical variables were obtained. All registries were compared to the ICHOM standard set of outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 12 national clinical diabetes registries, comprising a total of 7,181,356 diabetic patients worldwide. Nearly all registries recorded weight, HbA1c, lipid profile, and insulin treatment; the recording of other variables varied to a great extent. Overall, registries corresponded fairly well with the ICHOM set. Most registries proved to monitor and improve the quality of diabetes care using guidelines as a benchmark. The effects on national healthcare policy were more variable and often less clear. CONCLUSIONS: National diabetes registries confer clear insights into diagnostics, complications, and treatment. The extent to which registries influenced national healthcare policy was less clear. A globally implemented standard outcome set has the potential to improve concordance between national registries, enhance the comparison and exchange of diabetes outcomes, and allocate resources and interventions where most needed.