Quality of Diabetes Care in Germany Improved from 2000 to 2007 to 2014, but Improvements Diminished since 2007. Evidence from the Population-Based KORA Studies

Objective Little is known about the development of the quality of diabetes care in Germany. The aim of this study is to analyze time trends in patient self-management, physician-delivered care, medication, risk factor control, complications and quality of life from 2000 to 2014. Methods Analyses are based on data from individuals with type 2 diabetes of the population-based KORA S4 (1999-2001, n = 150), F4 (2006-2008, n = 203), FF4 (2013/14, n = 212) cohort study. Information on patient self-management, physician-delivered care, medication, risk factor control and quality of life were assessed in standardized questionnaires and examinations. The 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk was calculated using the UKPDS risk engine. Time trends were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, education, diabetes duration, and history of cardiovascular disease. Results From 2000 to 2014 the proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetic/cardio-protective medication and of those reaching treatment goals for glycemic control (HbA1c<7%, 60% to 71%, p = 0.09), blood pressure (<140/80 mmHg, 25% to 69%, p<0.001) and LDL cholesterol (<2.6 mmol/l, 13% to 27%, p<0.001) increased significantly. However, improvements were generally smaller from 2007 to 2014 than from 2000 to 2007. Modeled 10-year CHD risk decreased from 30% in 2000 to 24% in 2007 to 19% in 2014 (p<0.01). From 2007 to 2014, the prevalence of microvascular complications decreased and quality of life increased, but no improvements were observed for the majority of indicators of self-management. Conclusion Despite improvements, medication and risk factor control has remained suboptimal. The flattening of improvements and deteriorations in quality of (self-) care since 2007 indicate that more effort is needed to improve quality of care and patient self-management. Due to selection or lead time bias an overestimation of quality of care improvements cannot be ruled out.