Quality performance and associated factors in Swiss diabetes care – A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators and pay-for-performance schemes aim to improve processes and outcomes in clinical practice. However, general practitioner and patient characteristics influence quality indicator performance. In Switzerland, no data on the pay-for-performance approach exists and the use of quality indicators has been marginal. The aim of this study was to describe quality indicator performance in diabetes care in Swiss primary care and to analyze associations of practice, general practitioner and patient covariates with quality indicator performance. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we used medical routine data from an electronic medical record database. Data from 71 general practitioners and all their patients with diabetes were included. Starting in July 2018, we retrieved 12-month retrospective data about practice, general practitioner and patient characteristics, laboratory values, comorbidities and co-medication. Based on this data, we assessed quality indicator performance of process and intermediate outcomes for glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, cholesterol and associations of practice, general practitioner and patient characteristics with individual and cumulative quality indicator performance. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using regression methods. RESULTS: We assessed 3,383 patients with diabetes (57% male, mean age 68.3 years). On average, patients fulfilled 3.56 (standard deviation: 1.89) quality indicators, whereas 17.2% of the patients fulfilled all six quality indicators. On practice and general practitioner level, we found no associations with cumulative quality indicator performance. On patient level, gender (ref = male) (OR: 0.83, CI: 0.78–0.88), number of treating general practitioners (OR: 0.94, CI: 0.91–0.97), number of comorbidities (OR: 1.43, CI: 1.38–1.47) and number of consultations (OR: 1.02, CI: 1.02–1.02) were associated with cumulative quality indicator performance. CONCLUSION: The influence of practice, general practitioner and patient characteristics on quality indicator performance was surprisingly small and room for improvement in quality indicator performance of Swiss general practitioners seems to exist in diabetes care.