Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD): survey of specialist diabetes care services in the UK, 2000. 4. Dietetic services and nutritional issues

• Published in: Diabetic medicine Vol. 19; no. s4; pp. 39 - 43
• Main Authors: Winocour, P. H., Mearing, C., Ainsworth, A., Williams, D. R. R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Science, Ltd 01.07.2002
• Subjects: diabetes; Diabetes Mellitus - diet therapy; Diet, Diabetic; dietetics; Dietetics - standards; education; Guideline Adherence; guidelines; Health Care Surveys; Hospital Departments; Humans; national service framework; obesity; regional differences; Societies, Medical; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 0742-3071; 1464-5491
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.19.s4.7.x

Aims To examine the provision of, and variations in, dietetic services for diabetes in secondary care in the UK. Method A postal survey of all secondary care providers of diabetes services. Results There was a 77% response rate. A dedicated dietician supported diabetes services in 73% of responses, but only 45% were able to see newly diagnosed patients within 1 month. Only 3% of responses documented that dietetic services provided the recommended minimum 22 h weekly input to diabetes care, and an annual dietetic review was said to be available in 15%. An opportunity for more frequent visits was most likely if there was poor glycaemic control (78% of responses), particularly when services were provided by a dedicated diabetes dietician. Although dieticians frequently provided input to patient education (88%), specific training for this purpose and provision for continuing education of these individuals was less common (14% and 63%, respectively). Nutritional guidelines were available in 74%, but only 31% of responses documented current guidelines on obesity management. Of bids for additional dietetic resources, only 21% had been successful. There was evidence of regional variation in service provision, and no greater provision of dietetic services in areas with a large South Asian population and an expected high prevalence of diabetes. In broad terms, dietetic services for diabetes care had not altered in comparison with a similar survey in 1997. Conclusions The level of dietetic support of secondary care diabetes services remains dramatically lower than recommended in advisory documents, and appears to have changed little over the last 3 years. This is compounded by marked regional differences, and was no better in areas with a higher than average prevalence of diabetes. The survey also highlights the need for more co‐ordinated and structured education and training of dieticians as well as more consistency in nutritional guidelines.