Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Endocrinology
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 413276, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/413276
Research Article

Quality of Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Dubai: A HEDIS-Like Assessment

1ICON Epidemiology, 450-688 W Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 1P1
2Bristol-Myers Squibb, P.O. Box 454409, Dubai, UAE
3Bristol-Myers Squibb, 5 Research Parkway, Wallingford, CT 06492, USA
4Dubai Hospital, Al Khaleeja Street, Al Baraha, Dubai, UAE
5Precision Health Economics, 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA
6Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, 425-5790 University Avenue, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 1V7

Received 3 February 2015; Accepted 24 April 2015

Academic Editor: Matteo Monami

Copyright © 2015 Shelagh M. Szabo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective. As little data are available on the quality of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) care in the Arabian Gulf States, we estimated the proportion of patients receiving recommended monitoring at the Dubai Hospital for T2DM over one year. Methods. Charts from 150 adults with T2DM were systematically sampled and quality of care was assessed during one calendar year, using a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set- (HEDIS-) like assessment. Screening for glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), blood pressure, retinopathy, and nephropathy was considered. Patients were classified based on their most recent test in the period, and predictors of receiving quality care were examined. Results. Mean age was 58 years (standard deviation (SD): 12.4 years) and 33% were males. Over the year, 98% underwent HbA1c screening (50% had control and 28% displayed poor control); 91% underwent LDL screening (65% had control); 55% had blood pressure control; 30% had retinopathy screening; and 22% received attention for nephropathy. No individual characteristics examined predicted receiving quality care. Conclusion. Some guideline monitoring was conducted for most patients; and rates of monitoring for selected measures were comparable to benchmarks from the United States. Greater understanding of factors leading to high adherence would be useful for other areas of preventive care and other jurisdictions.