National Diabetes Audit Research Articles

Cohort profile: National Diabetes Audit for England and Wales.

Between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2020, a total of 5,280,885 people diagnosed with diabetes were included in at least one NDA data collection. To this date, median follow-up was 12 and 8years for people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes respectively. Comparisons with the 2019/20 Quality and Outcomes Framework show it included 98% of adults in England and Wales with diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Data include demographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, deprivation), risk factors (HbA1c , blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, smoking status) diabetic and cardiovascular complications and deaths. Secondary analyses have included comparisons of HbA1c and blood pressure measurements in cohorts with similar characteristics to the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study; COVID-19 related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and incidence of type 2 diabetes following admission to intensive care units. Commissioned NDA reports will continue to inform service development in England and Wales. The same data, with or without linkages to other external datasets, are also a rich resource for clinically orientated research.

What Gets Measured Gets Improved-Setting Standards and Accreditation for Quality Improvement for Diabetes Services in Australia.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate that setting standards of care is the cornerstone for excellence in diabetes management. This is underpinned by 3 activities: a standards and accreditation process, an audit and benchmarking program and a linked quality improvement plan. While there are many examples of local auditing and quality improvement programs, there are very few that are at a national level. The National Association of Diabetes Centres (NADC) was formed by the Australian Diabetes Society and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association to set standards of diabetes care in Australia. A rigorous accreditation process was put in place to recognize primary, secondary, and tertiary level diabetes centers that meet these standards. The NADC accreditation process is underpinned by a quality improvement plan, which must be submitted for accreditation to be granted and is informed by the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). ANDA is conducted annually to gather information about treatments, complications, self-care practices and quality of life outcomes and provides a national as well as an individual report to the participating center that is used to benchmark against other like centers. The ANDA reports are important to inform national policy and advocacy for diabetes care and to also provide information for quality improvement purposes for the individual participating center. We believe that the NADC Standards and Accreditation can be an exemplar for other countries to adapt and adopt to standardize diabetes care at the highest level.

Associations between attainment of incentivised primary care indicators and incident diabetic retinopathy in England: a population-based historical cohort study

BackgroundThe associations between England’s incentivised primary care-based diabetes prevention activities and hard clinical endpoints remain unclear. We aimed to examine the associations between attainment of primary care indicators and incident diabetic retinopathy (DR) among people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsA historical cohort (n = 60,094) of people aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes and no DR at baseline was obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Exposures included attainment of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) HbA1c (≤ 7.5% or 59 mmol/mol), blood pressure (≤ 140/80 mmHg), and cholesterol (≤ 5 mmol/L) indicators, and number of National Diabetes Audit (NDA) care processes completed (categorised as 0–3, 4–6, or 7–9), in 2010–2011. Outcomes were time to development of DR and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR). Nearest neighbour propensity score matching was undertaken and Cox proportional hazards models then fitted using the matched samples. Concordance statistics were calculated for each model.Results8263 DR and 832 STDR diagnoses were observed over mean follow-up periods of 3.5 (SD 2.1) and 3.8 (SD 2.0) years, respectively. HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) indicator attainment were associated with lower rates of DR (adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.99) and 0.87 (0.83–0.92), respectively), whereas cholesterol indicator attainment was not (aHR 1.03 (0.97–1.10)). All QOF indicators were associated with lower rates of STDR (aHRs 0.74 (0.62–0.87) for HbA1c, 0.78 (0.67–0.91) for BP, and 0.82 (0.67–0.99) for cholesterol). Completion of 7–9 vs. 0–3 NDA processes was associated with fewer STDR diagnoses (aHR 0.72 (0.55–0.94)).ConclusionsAttainment of key primary care indicators is associated with lower incidence of DR and STDR among patients with type 2 diabetes in England.

Alphabet strategy for diabetes care: A checklist approach in the time of COVID-19 and beyond.

Chronic disease management requires achievement of critical individualised targets to mitigate again long-term morbidity and premature mortality associated with diabetes mellitus. The responsibility for this lies with both the patient and health care professionals. Care plans have been introduced in many healthcare settings to provide a patient-centred approach that is both evidence-based to deliver positive clinical outcomes and allow individualised care. The Alphabet strategy (AS) for diabetes is based around such a care plan and has been evidenced to deliver high clinical standards in both well-resourced and under-resourced settings. Additional patient educational resources include special care plans for those people with diabetes undertaking fasting during Ramadan, Preconception Care, Prevention and Remission of Diabetes. The Strategy and Care Plan has facilitated evidence-based, cost-efficient multifactorial intervention with an improvement in the National Diabetes Audit targets for blood pressure, cholesterol levels and glycated haemoglobin. Many of these attainments were of the standard seen in intensively treated cohorts of key randomized controlled trials in diabetes care such as the Steno-2 and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. This is despite working in a relatively under-resourced service within the United Kingdom National Health Service. The AS for diabetes care is a useful tool to consider for planning care, education of people with diabetes and healthcare professional. During the time of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic the risk factors for the increased mortality observed have to be addressed aggressively. The AS has the potential to help with this aspiration.

Associations between attainment of incentivised primary care indicators and emergency hospital admissions among type 2 diabetes patients: a population-based historical cohort study.

England has invested considerably in diabetes care over recent years through programmes such as the Quality and Outcomes Framework and National Diabetes Audit. However, associations between specific programme indicators and key clinical endpoints, such as emergency hospital admissions, remain unclear. We aimed to examine whether attainment of Quality and Outcomes Framework and National Diabetes Audit primary care diabetes indicators is associated with diabetes-related, cardiovascular, and all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Historical cohort study. A total of 330 English primary care practices, 2010-2017, using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A total of 84,441 adults with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was emergency hospital admission for any cause. Secondary outcomes were (1) diabetes-related and (2) cardiovascular-related emergency admission. There were 130,709 all-cause emergency admissions, 115,425 diabetes-related admissions and 105,191 cardiovascular admissions, corresponding to unplanned admission rates of 402, 355 and 323 per 1000 patient-years, respectively. All-cause hospital admission rates were lower among those who met HbA1c and cholesterol indicators (incidence rate ratio = 0.91; 95% CI 0.89-0.92; p < 0.001 and 0.87; 95% CI 0.86-0.89; p < 0.001), respectively), with similar findings for diabetes and cardiovascular admissions. Patients who achieved the Quality and Outcomes Framework blood pressure target had lower cardiovascular admission rates (incidence rate ratio = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96-0.99; p = 0.001). Strong associations were found between completing 7-9 (vs. either 4-6 or 0-3) National Diabetes Audit processes and lower rates of all admission outcomes (p-values < 0.001), and meeting all nine National Diabetes Audit processes had significant associations with reductions in all types of emergency admissions by 22% to 26%. Meeting the HbA1c or cholesterol Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators, or completing 7-9 National Diabetes Audit processes, was also associated with longer time-to-unplanned all-cause, diabetes and cardiovascular admissions. Attaining Quality and Outcomes Framework-defined diabetes intermediate outcome thresholds, and comprehensive completion of care processes, may translate into considerable reductions in emergency hospital admissions. Out-of-hospital diabetes care optimisation is needed to improve implementation of core interventions and reduce unplanned admissions.

Associations between attainment of incentivized primary care indicators and incident lower limb amputation among those with type 2 diabetes: a population-based historical cohort study

IntroductionEngland has invested considerably in diabetes care through such programs as the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and National Diabetes Audit (NDA). Associations between program indicators and clinical endpoints, such...

Prescription of glucose-lowering therapies and risk of COVID-19 mortality in people with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide observational study in England

BackgroundIn patients with type 2 diabetes, hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Associations between pre-infection prescription for glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes have been postulated but only investigated in small studies and limited to a few agents. We investigated whether there are associations between prescription of different classes of glucose-lowering drugs and risk of COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis was a nationwide observational cohort study done with data from the National Diabetes Audit for people with type 2 diabetes and registered with a general practice in England since 2003. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of COVID-19-related mortality in people prescribed each class of glucose-lowering drug, with covariate adjustment with a propensity score to address confounding by demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors.FindingsAmong the 2 851 465 people with type 2 diabetes included in our analyses, 13 479 (0·5%) COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period (Feb 16 to Aug 31, 2020), corresponding to a rate of 8·9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 8·7–9·0). The adjusted HR associated with recorded versus no recorded prescription was 0·77 (95% CI 0·73–0·81) for metformin and 1·42 (1·35–1·49) for insulin. Adjusted HRs for prescription of other individual classes of glucose-lowering treatment were as follows: 0·75 (0·48–1·17) for meglitinides, 0·82 (0·74–0·91) for SGLT2 inhibitors, 0·94 (0·82–1·07) for thiazolidinediones, 0·94 (0·89–0·99) for sulfonylureas, 0·94 (0·83–1·07) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 1·07 (1·01–1·13) for DPP-4 inhibitors, and 1·26 (0·76–2·09) for α-glucosidase inhibitors.InterpretationOur results provide evidence of associations between prescription of some glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality, although the differences in risk are small and these findings are likely to be due to confounding by indication, in view of the use of different drug classes at different stages of type 2 diabetes disease progression. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no clear indication to change prescribing of glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes.FundingNone.

Associations between attainment of incentivised primary care diabetes indicators and mortality in an English cohort

AimsTo describe associations between incentivised primary care clinical and process indicators and mortality, among patients with type 2 diabetes in England. MethodsA historical 2010–2017 cohort (n = 84,441 adults) was derived from the UK CPRD. Exposures included English Quality and Outcomes Framework glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; 7.5%, 59 mmol/mol), blood pressure (140/80 mmHg), and cholesterol (5 mmol/L) indicator attainment; and number of National Diabetes Audit care processes completed, in 2010–11. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. ResultsOver median 3.9 (SD 2.0) years follow-up, 10,711 deaths occurred. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) indicated 12% (95% CI 8–16%; p < 0.0001) and 16% (11–20%; p < 0.0001) lower mortality rates among those who attained the HbA1c and cholesterol indicators, respectively. Rates were also lower among those who completed 7–9 vs. 0–3 or 4–6 care processes (aHRs 0.76 (0.71–0.82), p < 0.0001 and 0.61 (0.53–0.71), p < 0.0001, respectively), but did not obviously vary by blood pressure indicator attainment (aHR 1.04, 1.00–1.08; p = 0.0811). ConclusionsCholesterol, HbA1c and comprehensive process indicator attainment, was associated with enhanced survival. Review of community-based care provision could help reduce the gap between indicator standards and current outcomes, and in turn enhance life expectancy.

Associations between attainment of incentivized primary care indicators and incident sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in England: A population-based historical cohort study.

AimTo examine the impact of attainment of primary care diabetes clinical indicators on progression to sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) among those with mild non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR).Materials and MethodsAn historical cohort study of 18,978 adults (43.63% female) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before 1 April 2010 and mild NPDR before 1 April 2011 was conducted. The data were obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 2010‐2017, provided by 330 primary care practices in England. Exposures included attainment of the Quality and Outcomes Framework HbA1c (≤59 mmol/mol [≤7.5%]), blood pressure (≤140/80 mmHg) and cholesterol (≤5 mmol/L) indicators in the financial year 2010‐2011, as well as the number of National Diabetes Audit processes completed in 2010‐2011. The outcome was time to incident STDR. Nearest neighbour propensity score matching was undertaken, and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were then fitted using the matched samples. Concordance statistics were calculated for each model.ResultsA total of 1037 (5.5%) STDR diagnoses were observed over a mean follow‐up of 3.6 (SD 2.0) years. HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol indicator attainment were associated with lower rates of STDR (adjusted hazard ratios [95% CI] 0.64 [0.55‐0.74; p < .001], 0.83 [0.72‐0.94; p = .005] and 0.80 [0.66‐0.96; p = .015], respectively).ConclusionsOur findings provide support for meeting appropriate indicators for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care to bring a range of benefits, including improved health outcomes—such as a reduction in the risk of STDR—for people with type 2 diabetes.

Improving the management of type 2 diabetes through large-scale general practice: the role of a data-driven and technology-enabled education programme

A quality improvement (QI) scheme was launched in 2017, covering a large group of 25 general practices working with a deprived registered population. The aim was to improve the measurable...

Glycaemia and utilisation of technology across the lifespan of adults with type 1 diabetes: Results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA)

AimsTo evaluate the utilisation of technologies and associated glycaemia among adults with type 1 diabetes. MethodsDe-identified data from adults with type 1 diabetes (≥18 years old) in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA)–2019 were analysed. Proportions using insulin pumps or injections with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or capillary-glucose testing were compared. Technology use among adults was compared to young people (<21 years old) with subsidised CGM. Glycaemia and complication-burden were assessed across management strategies. Results1,693 adults were analysed. Mean(±SD) age, diabetes duration, and HbA1c were 43.3 ± 17.0 years, 20.3 ± 14.3 years and 8.4% ± 1.7 [68 ± 19 mmol/mol], respectively. Among adults, 40% used at least one device, 27% used insulin pumps, and 23% used CGM. CGM was used by 62% of young people with subsidised access. Mean HbA1c was consistently lower among adults using CGM, insulin pumps, or combined insulin pump and CGM compared to standard care (8.3% ± 1.6 [67 ± 18 mmol/mol], 8.2% ± 1.4 [66 ± 15 mmol/mol], and 7.8% ± 1.4 [62 ± 15 mmol/mol] respectively compared to 8.6% ± 1.8 [70 ± 20 mmol/mol], p < 0.001). Technology use was not associated with diabetic ketoacidosis but CGM was associated with more hypoglycaemia. ConclusionsGovernment subsidy is an important consideration for utilisation of technologies among adults with type 1 diabetes. Technology use across the adult lifespan was associated with lower HbA1c than insulin injections and capillary-glucose testing.

Risk factors for COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England: a population-based cohort study

BackgroundDiabetes has been associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality, but the association between modifiable risk factors, including hyperglycaemia and obesity, and COVID-19-related mortality among people with diabetes is unclear. We assessed associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe did a population-based cohort study of people with diagnosed diabetes who were registered with a general practice in England. National population data on people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes collated by the National Diabetes Audit were linked to mortality records collated by the Office for National Statistics from Jan 2, 2017, to May 11, 2020. We identified the weekly number of deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the first 19 weeks of 2020 and calculated the percentage change from the mean number of deaths for the corresponding weeks in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The associations between risk factors (including sex, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, HbA1c, renal impairment [from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)], BMI, tobacco smoking status, and cardiovascular comorbidities) and COVID-19-related mortality (defined as International Classification of Diseases, version 10, code U07.1 or U07.2 as a primary or secondary cause of death) between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, were investigated by use of Cox proportional hazards models.FindingsWeekly death registrations in the first 19 weeks of 2020 exceeded the corresponding 3-year weekly averages for 2017–19 by 672 (50·9%) in people with type 1 diabetes and 16 071 (64·3%) in people with type 2 diabetes. Between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, among 264 390 people with type 1 diabetes and 2 874 020 people with type 2 diabetes, 1604 people with type 1 diabetes and 36 291 people with type 2 diabetes died from all causes. Of these total deaths, 464 in people with type 1 diabetes and 10 525 in people with type 2 diabetes were defined as COVID-19 related, of which 289 (62·3%) and 5833 (55·4%), respectively, occurred in people with a history of cardiovascular disease or with renal impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). Male sex, older age, renal impairment, non-white ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and previous stroke and heart failure were associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Compared with people with an HbA1c of 48–53 mmol/mol (6·5–7·0%), people with an HbA1c of 86 mmol/mol (10·0%) or higher had increased COVID-19-related mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2·23 [95% CI 1·50–3·30, p<0·0001] in type 1 diabetes and 1·61 [1·47–1·77, p<0·0001] in type 2 diabetes). In addition, in people with type 2 diabetes, COVID-19-related mortality was significantly higher in those with an HbA1c of 59 mmol/mol (7·6%) or higher than in those with an HbA1c of 48–53 mmol/mol (HR 1·22 [95% CI 1·15–1·30, p<0·0001] for 59–74 mmol/mol [7·6–8·9%] and 1·36 [1·24–1·50, p<0·0001] for 75–85 mmol/mol [9·0–9·9%]). The association between BMI and COVID-19-related mortality was U-shaped: in type 1 diabetes, compared with a BMI of 25·0–29·9 kg/m2, a BMI of less than 20·0 kg/m2 had an HR of 2·45 (95% CI 1·60–3·75, p<0·0001) and a BMI of 40·0 kg/m2 or higher had an HR of 2·33 (1·53–3·56, p<0·0001); the corresponding HRs for type 2 diabetes were 2·33 (2·11–2·56, p<0·0001) and 1·60 (1·47–1·75, p<0·0001).InterpretationDeaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes rose sharply during the initial COVID-19 pandemic in England. Increased COVID-19-related mortality was associated not only with cardiovascular and renal complications of diabetes but, independently, also with glycaemic control and BMI.FundingNone.

Regional Variation in Unmet Need for Metabolic Surgery in England: a Retrospective, Multicohort Analysis.

Metabolic surgery provision is severely limited despite extensive supportive trial evidence. This study estimated the eligible population and the unmet need for metabolic surgery within English regions. Health Survey for England, National Diabetes Audit and population estimates were used to estimate the metabolic surgery eligible population by English region. Hospital Episode Statistics data was examined for metabolic surgery procedure volume by region (2013–2019). Regression analysis examined factors associated with metabolic surgery eligibility. 7.3% of the English population is potentially eligible for metabolic surgery; equivalent to 3.21 million people. Only 0.20% of the eligible English population receive metabolic surgery per year (regional variation 0.08–0.41%). The metabolic surgery eligible population was more likely to be female, older, have fewer educational qualifications and live in more deprived areas.

Estimating life years lost to diabetes: outcomes from analysis of National Diabetes Audit and Office of National Statistics data.

With sustained growth of diabetes numbers, sustained patient engagement is essential. Using nationally available data, we have shown that the higher mortality associated with a diagnosis of T1DM/T2DM could produces loss of 6.4 million future life years in the current UK population. In the model, the 'average' person with T1DM (age 42.8 years) has a life expectancy from now of 32.6 years, compared to 40.2 years in the equivalent age non diabetes mellitus population, corresponding to lost life years (LLYs) of 7.6 years/average person. The 'average' person with T2DM (age 65.4 years) has a life expectancy from now of 18.6 years compared to the 20.3 years for the equivalent non diabetes mellitus population, corresponding to LLY of 1.7 years/average person. We estimate that for both T1DM and T2DM, one year with HbA1c >58 mmol/mol loses around 100 life days. Linking glycaemic control to mortality has the potential to focus minds on effective engagement with therapy and lifestyle recommendation adherence.

The association of smoking status with glycemic control, metabolic profile and diabetic complications– Results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA)

BackgroundTobacco smoking and diabetes mellitus contribute significantly to the overall health burden and mortality of Australians. We aimed to assess the relationship of smoking with glycemic control, metabolic profile and complications in Australian patients living with diabetes. MethodsWe analysed the 2011–2017 biennial Australian National Diabetes Audit cross-sectional data. Patients were classified as current, past or never smokers. Linear (or quantile) and logistic regression models were used to assess for associations. ResultsData from 15,352 patients were analysed, including 72.2% with type 2 diabetes. Current smokers comprised 13.5% of the study population. Current and past smokers had a median HbA1c that was 0.49% and 0.14% higher than never smokers, respectively, as well as higher triglyceride and lower HDL levels (all p values < .0001). Compared to never smokers, current smokers had higher odds of severe hypoglycemia and current and past smokers had higher odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, lower limb amputation, erectile dysfunction and peripheral neuropathy (all p values ≤.001), with no significant change over time. ConclusionWhen compared to never smokers, current and past smokers had poorer glycemic and lipid control and higher odds of macrovascular and microvascular complications. Despite this, current smoking remains prevalent among Australians with diabetes.

COVID‐19: diabetes and death. A call to action

<scp>COVID</scp>‐19: diabetes and death. A call to action

The effect of 'paying for performance' on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional observational study.

BackgroundThe ‘cycle of care’ (COC) pay for performance (PFP) programme, introduced in 2015, has resourced Irish GPs to provide structured care to PCRS eligible patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).AimTo investigate the effect of COC on management processes.Design &settingCross-sectional observational study undertaken with two points of comparison (2014 and 2017) in participating practices (Republic of Ireland general practices), with comparator data from the United Kingdom National Diabetes Audit (UKNDA) 2015–2016.MethodInvitations to participate were sent to practices using a discussion forum for Health One clinical software. Participating practices provided data on the processes of care in the management of patients with T2DM. Data on PCRS eligible patients was extracted from the electronic medical record system of participating practices using secure customised software. Descriptive analysis, using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 25), was performed.ResultsOf 250 practices invited, 41 practices participated (16.4%), yielding data from 3146 patients. There were substantial improvements in the rates of recording of glycosylated haemoglobin ([HbA1c] 53.1%–98.3%), total cholesterol ([TC] 59.2%–98.8%), urinary albumin:creatinine ratio ([ACR] 9.9%–42.3%), blood pressure ([BP] 61.4%–98.2%), and body-mass index ([BMI] 39.8%–97.4%) from 2014 to 2017. For the first time, rates of retinopathy screening (76.3%), foot review (64.9%), and influenza immunisation (69.9%) were recorded. Comparison of 2017 data with UKNDA 2015–2016 was broadly similar.ConclusionThe COC demonstrated much improved rates of recording of clinical and biochemical parameters, and improved achievement of targets in TC and BP, but not HbA1c. Results demonstrate substantial improvements in the processes and quality of care in the management of patients with T2DM.

Social Inequality and Diabetes: A Commentary.

Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare is seen across the spectrum of healthcare, including diabetes. Health inequalities are defined as the ‘preventable, unfair and unjust differences in health status between groups, populations or individuals that arise from the unequal distribution of social, environmental and economic conditions within societies, which determine the risk of people getting ill, their ability to prevent sickness or opportunities to take action and access treatment when ill health occurs’ (NHS England; https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/equality/equality-hub/resources/). Access to diabetes technologies has improved glycaemic and quality-of-life outcomes for many users. Inability to access such devices, however, is evidenced in National Diabetes Audit data, with a reported tenfold variation in insulin pump use by people with type 1 diabetes across specialist centres. This variation suggests a lack of access to healthcare systems that should be investigated. This article highlights some of the key issues surrounding healthcare inequalities in the management of diabetes.

Using data to improve the care of people with diabetes across Oxfordshire

AbstractData from GP practices and hospital trusts have long been used to understand the quality of care received by people with diabetes. However, annual data collection is too infrequent to see what difference rapid changes in practice make to diabetes care. We developed a diabetes dashboard modelled on the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), which provided monthly updates on key care components. The data were displayed at both individual GP level as well as at a Locality level (now called primary care network [PCN] level) and clinical commissioning group (CCG) level. Discussion about the dashboard was incorporated into regular GP practice visits by diabetes consultants and community diabetes specialist nurses which occurred twice a year to nearly every GP practice in the CCG. Twice‐yearly Locality meetings also reviewed the data at Locality level and provided a forum for sharing ‘best practice’. Over the last two years significant improvements have been seen, particularly in the achievement of the eight key care processes and the attendance at structured education within one year of diagnosis.The diabetes dashboard has been integral in the improvement of care for people with diabetes in Oxfordshire. It continues to evolve with data now displayed at PCN level and ongoing work to align the dashboard with the NDA coding. The dashboard was most effective when used within the context of supportive clinical engagement.

Differences in Rates of Uptake of NICE Clinical Guidelines Between Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) As Evidenced by National Diabetes Audit of England and Wales

Differences in Rates of Uptake of NICE Clinical Guidelines Between Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) As Evidenced by National Diabetes Audit of England and Wales