Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate if the following standard quality criteria of clinical records is associated with better metabolic control in diabetic patients, cared for in Health Centers of the province of Segovia, Spain. The record of specific information pieces were considered as quality criteria of medical records. Possible confusion variables were controlled for. Results: no relationship between the quality of medical records and the HbA1c of the patients as a whole were found . This relationship was found for patients treated with diet or oral diabetic drugs. HbA1c was 7.40% for medical records that achieved only =< 49% of quality criteria, compared to 6.94% for records that attained >= 50% of quality criteria. The difference was not due to differences in the rest of variables. Health Centers with lower quality clinical records improve them as they treat patients with insulin, this happens when HbA1c is higher. Conclusions: the recording of clinical information, needed to make correct clinical decisions, can be associated with a better patient control only if it is recorded at the appropriate time within the natural history of the illness.

Key words
Medical records quality, metabolic control, diabetes

Bibliografía del artículo

1. Instituto Nacional de la Salud. Subdirección General de Atención Primaria. Evaluación de Cartera de Servicios. Manual de procedimiento. Madrid, 2.001.
2. Ruiz de Adana Pérez, R. El producto de la cartera de servicios de atención primaria: algunas preguntas para reflexionar. Medifam 1995;3:137-142.
3. C Segovia Pérez, A Maín Pérez, L Corral Cuevas, E González María, MA Raquejo Grado, E Martín Tomero, A de Pablos Heredero, A López Rodríguez, JC Hidalgo Santos. Control metabólico de la diabetes mellitus en relación con la calidad de las historias clínicas. Aten Primaria 2000; 26:670-676.
4. Díaz Díaz JM, García de Celis Rodríguez MJ, Hevia Panizo LA, Morales Canorea FJ, Vecino González JA, Forcada Lozano JE. Normas técnicas mínimas y control metabólico de la diabetes en un Centro de Salud. Medifam 1996; 6: 345-351.
5. Lara E, Hervás R, González MT, Salas F, Muñoz P, Velasco A. Predicción del grado de control metabólico por las normas técnicas mínimas en el programa de diabetes. Aten Primaria 1997; 19: 313-316.
6. Fernández Herráez E, Ferré Larrosa F, Jiménez Alfonso L, de Dios Arnaldos J. Valoración de los factores relacionados con el control de la glucemia en la diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Aten Primaria 1999; 24: 39-43.
7. Costa B, Richart C. Evaluación de un programa de atención al diabético. Estudio de continuidad a 40 meses. Med Clin (Barc) 1991; 97: 89-95.
8. Costa B. Hemoglobinas glicadas y diabetes. Una determinación del pasado glucémico con interés para el futuro (editorial). Med Clin (Barc) 1991;96:534-436.
9. Milton C. Weinstein, Harvey V. Fineberg. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1980: 12-34; 146-148.
10. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of Diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993. 329: 977- 86.
11. Klein R, Klein BEK, Moss SE. Relation of Glycemic Control to Diabetic Microvascular Complications in Diabetes Mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 94-96.
12. Lawrence B. Mohr. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1995: 13-30.
13. Albero R, Acha J, Sanz A, Casamayor L, Playán J, Boudet A. Mejoría metabólica de la diabetes mellitus mediante el seguimiento de normas escritas de autocontrol. Aten Primaria 1993; 12: 475-478.
14. Goicolea I, Mancha AI, Ugarte E, Vázquez JA. Influencias sobre el control metabólico del tipo de tratamiento, la educación diabetológica, los controles glucémicos y los hábitos tóxicos: estudio sobre 924 diabéticos insulin-dependientes. Av Diabetol 1996; 12: 8-12.
15. Lawrence B. Mohr. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1995: 57-98.
16. Thomas D. Cook, Donald T. Campbell. Quasi-Experimentation. Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1979: 50-59; 103-120.

Autoevaluación