Customer quality and type 2 diabetes from the patients' perspective: a cross-sectional study

Quality in health care can be seen as having three principal dimensions: service, technical and customer quality. This study aimed to measure Customer Quality in relation to self-management of Type 2 diabetes. A cross-sectional survey of 577 Type 2 diabetes people was carried out in Australia. The 13-item Patient Activation Measure was used to evaluate Customer Quality based on self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence in four stages of self-management. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 13.0. All participants achieved scores at the level of stage 1, but ten percent did not achieve score levels consistent with stage 2 and a further 16% did not reach the actual action stage. Seventy-four percent reported capacity for taking action for self-management and 38% reported the highest Customer Quality score and ability to change the action by changing health and environment. Participants with a higher education attainment, better diabetes control status and those who maintain continuity of care reported a higher Customer Quality score, reflecting higher capacity for self-management. Specific capacity building programs for health care providers and people with Type 2 diabetes are needed to increase their knowledge and skills; and improve their confidence to self-management, to achieve improved quality of delivered care and better health outcomes

Quality of delivered care for people with type 2 diabetes: a new patient-centred model

The quality of care from the perspective of people with type 2 diabetes using a new model [CQMH] including three dimensions of quality in health care [Technical, Service and Customer Quality] was assessed. A cross-sectional survey with a sample of 577 people with type 2 diabetes was conducted. Measures were self-reported adherence to national guidelines for technical quality, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research questionnaire for service quality and the short form of the Patient Activation Measure for Customer Quality. There was a significant gap in technical quality between what diabetes care the patients reported receiving and what was recommended in the guideline, particularly for management and lifestyle aspects. For service quality, the lowest scores were for choice of care provider and accessibility of care. The mean Customer Quality score was 64.5 [meaning higher score indicating better quality]. A positive relationship was demonstrated between higher technical, service and customer quality scores, and better diabetes control status as well as maintaining continuity of care. The average Quality Index was 70.0 of a 0-100 scale. Customer Quality appears to be a useful third dimension in conceptualizing quality in health care, particularly in the context of chronic disease, where good self-management can improve the outcomes of care. A high proportion of Queensland adults with type 2 diabetes reported receiving suboptimal care in the majority aspects of provided care services as reflected in the overall Quality Index score indicating substantial room for quality improvement