ARTICLE Adherence to Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients Attending an Outpatient Diabetes Education Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines can be a useful tool in the effort to improve patient outcomes. Objective: To determine the percentage of patients attending the Diabetes Education Centre at the Lions Gate Hospital for whom monitoring frequencies, laboratory targets, and medication therapy (as recommended in the 2003 clinical practice guidelines of the Canadian Diabetes Association) were achieved. Methods: Health records were reviewed for all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were 19 to 69 years of age at the time of their first visit to the Diabetes Education Centre and whose first visit took place in 2004. Results: Initial monitoring frequencies for hemoglobin A1C, lipid profile, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio, and eye examination were achieved for a high proportion of the 167 patients who met the study criteria (63 % to 93%). Recommended laboratory targets for hemoglobin A1C were achieved for a high proportion of patients (93%), but the rate was lower (21 % to 44%) for other targets (fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and ratio of total cholesterol to high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol). Less than 60 % (25 % to 56%) of eligible patients received recommended medications (antihyperglycemic agents, antihypertensive agents, statins, and acetylsalicylic acid). Conclusions: For most patients, recommendations for initial monitoring were met, but more work is needed to ensure that laboratory targets are achieved, that appropriate medication therapy is initiated, and that the management of cardiovascu-lar risk factors is emphasized. Key words: type 2 diabetes mellitus, guideline adherence, quality assessment
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".