None of the clinics had achieved 75% of any factor of patient care. With the implementation of the improvements, there was marked improvement in clinic 1 where five parameters have reached 75% mark, whereas clinic 2 had attained 75% in 1 parameter and clinic 7 in 3 parameters. Unfortunately, five of the eight clinics couldn’t attain the 75% care for any of the 9 parameters, despite the implementation of the suggested remedial measures by all the doctors. This indicated that there was a gap between knowledge, performance and inertia to change.
The audit threw light on the issues faced by private general practitioners during the implementation of the corrective measures.
Four clinics did not implement a reminder mechanism despite establishing a diabetic register. Doctors differed in their opinion regarding reminder service as three doctors felt that it might offend or embarrass them and might convey the impression that they were lobbying patients. They felt it was the patient’s sole responsibility to come up for follow up. This was in contrast with the other doctors who found the review mechanism valuable and felt that diabetes register aided the regular follow up along with an appropriate recall system.…show more content… Many patients were not keen for an ophthalmologic referral in view of the finance involved. Cost constraints dissuaded some patients to increase drug dosage where needed to improve control. To overcome all these issues, patient selection was carefully limited to insured
