The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997
Finding diabetics--a method of screening in general practice.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bullimore S P, Keyworth C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is well known that many diabetic patients go undiagnosed until complications have started to develop. Screening can be expensive in time and money, and ineffective, and is therefore unpopular with general practitioners (GPs).
AIM: This study aimed to develop a screening method that was cost-effective and practical within the setting of an ordinary general practice.
METHOD: Urine-testing sticks for glucose were sent with an explanatory letter to all (1736) non-diabetic subjects over 50 years old in a general practice. At the same time, diabetic recall and care were audited and improved in the practice.
RESULTS: Reply slips were received from 1204 patients (69.4%). Of these, 2.6% were positive and 97.4% were negative. Eight new diabetic patients were therefore found at a cost of 78.25 pounds each.
CONCLUSION: This method of screening a selected part of a general practice population is practical and effective. Apart from the human cost, the financial cost of finding a new diabetic patient is small compared with that of caring for a diabetic patient who is blind or an amputee.
AIM: This study aimed to develop a screening method that was cost-effective and practical within the setting of an ordinary general practice.
METHOD: Urine-testing sticks for glucose were sent with an explanatory letter to all (1736) non-diabetic subjects over 50 years old in a general practice. At the same time, diabetic recall and care were audited and improved in the practice.
RESULTS: Reply slips were received from 1204 patients (69.4%). Of these, 2.6% were positive and 97.4% were negative. Eight new diabetic patients were therefore found at a cost of 78.25 pounds each.
CONCLUSION: This method of screening a selected part of a general practice population is practical and effective. Apart from the human cost, the financial cost of finding a new diabetic patient is small compared with that of caring for a diabetic patient who is blind or an amputee.