Quality assessment of primary care for common mental disorders in isolated communities: Taking advantage of health records.

INTRODUCTION: This article is part of a research study on the organization of primary health care (PHC) for mental health in two of Quebec's remote regions. It introduces a methodological approach based on information found in health records, for assessing the quality of PHC offered to people suffering from depression or anxiety disorders. METHODS: Quality indicators were identified from evidence and case studies were reconstructed using data collected in health records over a 2-year observation period. Data collection was developed using a three-step iterative process: (1) feasibility analysis, (2) development of a data collection tool, and (3) application of the data collection method. The adaptation of quality-of-care indicators to remote regions was appraised according to their relevance, measurability and construct validity in this context. RESULTS: As a result of this process, 18 quality indicators were shown to be relevant, measurable and valid for establishing a critical quality appraisal of four recommended dimensions of PHC clinical processes: recognition, assessment, treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There is not only an interest in the use of health records to assess the quality of PHC for mental health in remote regions but also a scientific value for the rigorous and meticulous methodological approach developed in this study. From the perspective of stakeholders in the PHC system of care in remote areas, quality indicators are credible and provide potential for transferability to other contexts. This study brings information that has the potential to identify gaps in and implement solutions adapted to the context.

Chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetic patients followed-up by primary care physicians in Switzerland: prevalence and prescription of antidiabetic drugs.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among type 2 diabetic patients in primary care settings in Switzerland, and to analyse the prescription of antidiabetic drugs in CKD according to the prevailing recommendations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, each participating physician was asked to introduce anonymously in a web database the data from up to 15 consecutive diabetic patients attending her/his office between December 2013 and June 2014. Demographic, clinical and biochemical data were analysed. CKD was classified with the KDIGO nomenclature based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1 359 patients (mean age 66.5 ± 12.4 years) were included by 109 primary care physicians. CKD stages 3a, 3b and 4 were present in 13.9%, 6.1%, and 2.4% of patients, respectively. Only 30.6% of patients had an entry for urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Among them, 35.6% were in CKD stage A2, and 4.1% in stage A3. Despite prevailing limitations, metformin and sulfonylureas were prescribed in 53.9% and 16.5%, respectively, of patients with advanced CKD (eGFR <30 ml/min). More than a third of patients were on a dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor across all CKD stages. Insulin use increased progressively from 26.8% in CKD stage 1-2 to 50% in stage 4. CONCLUSIONS: CKD is frequent in patients with type 2 diabetes attending Swiss primary care practices, with CKD stage 3 and 4 affecting 22.4% of cases. This emphasizes the importance of routine screening of diabetic nephropathy based on both eGFR and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, the latter being largely underused by primary care physicians. A careful individual drug risk/benefit balance assessment is mandatory to avoid the frequently observed inappropriate prescription of antidiabetic drugs in CKD patients.