|Year : 1997 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 12-23
Guidelines for the management of diabetic patients in the health centers of Saudi Arabia
Eiad A AI-Faris
Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
|Date of Web Publication||31-Jul-2012|
Eiad A AI-Faris
P.O. Box 2925, Riyadh 11461
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
This paper presents general guidelines for the management of diabetic patients within the primary health care (PHC) system in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). It intends to enhance PHC physicians' knowledge and improve clinical practice to ensure better management of people with diabetes mellitus. A stepwise (Algorithm) management approach for different categories of diabetic patients, including diet, exercise, and drugs, is suggested. The peculiarities of Family Medicine, e.g., adopting the biopsychosocial model, the holistic approach, and relations with the hospital are considered.
Keywords: Guidelines, diabetes, family medicine, Saudi Arabia
|How to cite this article:|
AI-Faris EA. Guidelines for the management of diabetic patients in the health centers of Saudi Arabia. J Fam Community Med 1997;4:12-23
| Introduction|| |
Developing guidelines for the management of diabetes mellitus (DM) is given priority, as it is a common, serious and costly health problem. Saudi Arabia is a high-prevalence country (12-16%) , according to the Ad Hoc Diabetes Reporting Group.  Although DM is associated with a high incidence of complications,  better control is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality.  Failure of consistency of care causes confusion among patients and reduces their compliance. The economic burden of the disease is enormous. A study in the AlKhobar area (Eastern Province) found the average total cost, clinic time and investigations cost for diabetic patients to be double while the drug costs were three times those of a control group of non-diabetic patients.  Finally, the emotional cost of diabetes is huge, as it is commonly associated with anxiety, impotence, disturbed family life, and increased fatigue and irritability.  A systematic review of published evaluations of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) found that the majority were successful in detecting statistically significant improvements in the process of medical care.  CPGs developed by family physicians have proved to be the most successful of several tested. 
CPGs for the management of diabetes formulated by diabetologists in developed countries ,,,, may not be applicable to Saudi Arabia, and were designed to manage patients within tertiary care centers. However, as research in family medicine is relatively scarce and the newer CPGs have not been in existence long enough to be properly tested in primary care settings, it seems logical at present to use the most sensible, relevant, and evidence-based CPGs ,, that have been adopted by other specialities and to modify them to be more relevant. 
Existing guidelines are directed to Primary Health Care (PHC) physicians and other PHC team members. They were developed in 1988 to be used in a health center at King Saud University hospitals. They were later updated and modified to be used in the Quality Assurance (QA) Program in Primary Health Care developed jointly by the Saudi Ministry of Health and World Health Organization (WHO).  The update process included literature review with particular emphasis on expert consensus of medical speciality societies such as the American Diabetes Association, evidence based analysis, and clinical reviews. As part of the QA program, the author conducted training sessions in different regions of Saudi Arabia for PHC supervisors. Their feedback on the feasibility and appropriateness of the guidelines was utilized to make them more practical and relevant to the PHC setting in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, WHO and local hospital consultants were consulted.
The aim of the present guidelines is to promote better management of people with diabetes mellitus through the following objectives: (1) to enhance PHC physicians' and other team members' knowledge and clinical practice; (2) to improve patient doctor relationships and patients' compliance through more consistent physicians advice and management choices.
Standards of process (protocol)
A. Record System: The first requirement towards developing any plan that provides structured care for diabetics in a health center is to identify the patients and establish a register,  which should be regularly updated and looked after by one person. The records must always be accessible to the diabetes treatment team and organized so that they not only document what has occurred, but serve as a reminder of what should be done at appropriate intervals  (Appendix 1-5).
B. Appointments organization: The or ganization of diabetic care into fixed sessions (mini-clinics) will allow the professionals (e.g. diabetic nurse, dietitian etc.) to rotate among the Primary Health Care Centers (PHCCs). Non-diabetic patients may be seen during these sessions. A diabetic patient who finds the timing of the sessions inconvenient may be seen at other times. Twenty minutes may be required for new patients and ten for follow-up visits.
C. Frequency of consultation: For a stable Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM) patient, a one-to-two monthly appointment interval is acceptable. The patient may come earlier for a repeat prescription, or for other reasons. The appointment interval should be shorter for new patients, if there is a change in the management program, or a worsening in the patient's clinical condition.
D. Monitoring: Patients' files should be screened by a trained health professional (e.g. a nurse) before each consultation, with a reminder placed on those notes that have not complied with the guidelines. A random sample of the medical records of patients seen by each doctor should be audited at regular intervals (for instance every three months) and feedback should be sent to each doctor. The use of patient-specific reminders and feedback helps to increase compliance in a busy clinic. 
A. For non pregnant patients: The WHO criteria for the diagnosis of DM is adopted in [Figure 1]. (I) Fasting blood sugar (FBS) > 7.8 mmol/L or random blood sugar (RBS) > 11.1 mmol/L on one occasion for symptomatic patients and twice for asymptomatic patients establishes the diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus.  (ii) If the FBS is < 6 mmol/L then the diagnosis of DM is unlikely. (iii) The value of FBS 6-7.7 mmol/L is an indication that the oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) is required [Figure 1].
B. For pregnant patients (Gestational Diabetes): After an oral glucose load of 100 gm, diagnosis of gestational DM may be made if two or more of the following equal or exceed the values (in mmol/L) as shown below.  (I) Fasting blood sugar (FBS) > 5.8. (ii) One hour post-prandial glucose > 10.5. (iii) Two hours post-prandial glucose > 9.1. (iv) 3 hours post-prandial glucose > 8.0. Note: Pregnant patients with impaired glucose tolerance should be managed as if they are suffering from diabetes and should be referred to the hospital specialist clinic.
3. Management at initial visit and follow-up
The steps of management suggested here are intended to be general guidelines that would never substitute for clinical judgement. Each patient's total clinical and psychosocial circumstances must be considered. The physician should treat the patient and not the disease (the holistic approach). It is not enough to control blood sugar, as other risk factors (e.g., depression, smoking, hypertension, impotence, obesity etc., and other, socio-economic conditions) are important too. Recognizing that psychosocial disturbances are of crucial importance, they should be reviewed in each visit (Appendix 4) and be managed through counseling and referral to other team members who could be of some help. The involvement of other team members is essential during all aspects of diabetic care.
The essential points in history, examination and laboratory work should be completed in the diabetic record in a maximum of two visits (Appendix 1-5). Initial and annual assessment should follow the checklist in Appendix 3. Appendixes 1-4 should be filled by the physician while Appendix 5 is done by the diabetic education nurse. By writing the date in Appendix 5, both the physician and the nurse will know the educational topics discussed in the previous sessions.
Certain groups of patients need shared care with the hospital through the referral system. They include: children, pregnant women, IDDM patients, those with known complications (viz., retinopathy, foot ulcers, nephropathy and neuropathy), and NIDDM patients who cannot be controlled by maximum dose of oral hypoglycemics. The specialist should provide written instructions for both the patient and the referring physician.
Individual treatment goals should take into account the patient's capacity to understand and carry out the treatment regimen as the risks associated with optimal control of blood sugar may outweigh the benefit of normogylcemia among certain groups of patients e.g. very young or old age or other coexisting diseases.
The following steps should be taken at the time of diagnosis and on subsequent annual visits: (I) conduct the appropriate initial work-up (history, examination, investigation, treatment) and fill in the diabetic record; (ii) refer all patients to the dietitian, diabetic nurse and dentist, and patients who need shared care to the endocrinologist; (iii) refer NIDDM patients to the ophthalmologist at the time of diagnosis and on later annual visits. For IDDM patients, the annual referral to the ophthalmologist should start five years after diagnosis. ,
It is important to decide initially what type of diabetes the patient has (IDDM or NIDDM) [Table 1]. If difficulties in the classification are encountered, the patient may need to be referred to the hospital for further investigations.
The patients' body weight (BW), ideal BW, and body mass index (BMI) should be checked first. If the BMI is more than 30 or the BW is 20% over the desirable body weight (DBW), the patient's management should be as shown in [Figure 2]-A, otherwise [Figure 2]-B should be followed.
|Figure 2: Algorithm for the management of obese and non-obese type 2 patients|
Click here to view
The exact time of transfer to further management options depends on the clinician's judgment, but the guidelines are that the thinner the patient (i.e., significant weight loss), the higher the blood sugar, and the more acute the other symptoms, the more the doctor should move from conservative management with diet alone toward (i) oral drugs or (ii) insulin, at short intervals.  The presence of ketoacidosis would make insulin therapy essential. The determining factor in the choice of oral hypoglycemics (e.g., Gliben-clamide, Gliclazide) is the price and availability of the drugs. If the patient is not complying with the recommended treatment, then he should be motivated to do so and this should take precedence over other actions.
Blood Glucose Monitoring - Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) and 2-hour postprandial glucose monitoring are usually needed to assess the level of control of Type II patients. HbAlc - if available - provides useful objective information about the adequacy of control over the preceding two to three months. Measurement of HbAlc each three to four months is usually adequate.
The self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) provides useful information on which to base therapeutic decisions. This is more important for IDDM patients. The effective use of SMBG encourages the patient to assume greater responsibility for control, thereby increasing confidence and self-management. It is also of educational value as it provides patients with feedback on the effect of lifestyle changes such as food and exercise on glucose control. The timing of testing should be rotated, preprandially and two hours postprandially to provide a full profile. The frequency, timing and necessity of SMBG need to be individualized according to the patient's level of control and stability. Patients with stable metabolic control may test once daily at different times or before each main meal and at bed time twice weekly. Those patients whose metabolic control is unstable and those requiring multiple injections need to monitor their blood glucose levels more frequently. 
B. Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM) - Type 1: Insulin regimens include the following: (i) A single injection of intermediate-acting insulin should not be used for Type I patients except for patients who refuse or cannot have more than one injection, per day as it is not possible to achieve reasonable glucose control with this regimen. However, Type II patients, in periods of stress or in case of oral drugs failure may require a single, intermediate acting insulin injection at night . (ii) Two injections of a short- and intermediate acting insulin in the morning and evening (iii) Multiple injections (3-4) per day using syringes or insulin pens is associated with better glycemic control. 
1. Initiation of insulin: Start with intermediate-acting (NPH) insulin (0.2 units/kg) single dose before breakfast, then consider adding soluble insulin and a second evening dose, as described below.
2. Adjusting the insulin dosage: (a) For patients on a single, medium-acting injection, unmixed, base the decision to adjust insulin mainly on the result of the FBS and 2-hour postprandial glucose monitoring. (b) For patients on more than one injection daily, adjustments should usually be made on the basis of a series of blood sugar estimations e.g. for patients on two injections of both short- and intermediate-acting (NPH) insulin; before lunch glucose is corrected by adjusting morning soluble insulin; before dinner glucose by morning NPH, bed-time glucose (evening soluble) and FBS (evening NPH) (c) Adjustments should normally be made at intervals of approximately two to three days (d) Changes in dosage should normally be within 10% of the previous dose.
Exercise recommendations for IDDM and NIDDM patients are different. For IDDM patients, safety and precautions against hypoglycemia are the most important. The benefits of improving lipid profile and blood pressure, and of reducing stress should be emphasized.
For NIDDM patients, exercise is more important and should be an integral part of the treatment plan as it promotes weight loss and reduces insulin resistance. 
Medical nutrition therapy is integral to total care and management of diabetics. Diet, exercise and drugs should be considered together. The patient should fill in a food diary for a week (or at least, a few days) to be used as a baseline for dietary management and education. Group and individual education lessons that include diabetic diet are essential (Appendix 5). The diet scale as an educational tool may prove very useful. Calculation of total caloric requirements and translating them into food exchanges is the role of the dietitian. In practices with no dietitian, the family physician should have a scheme for calculating the patient's diet [Table 2]. The diet should contain fewer saturated fats and no refined sugar. Regulating carbohydrate consumption is important for patients on Insulin or sulphonylurea to avoid hypoglycemia.
Diabetic regime compliance and cultural practices
Diabetes control can only be achieved by effective self-management. The patients' health-belief model is an important determining factor for their compliance. Patients' perceived barriers (e.g. clinic waiting time, cost of drugs, inconvenience of SMBG) should be reduced and their perceived benefit (e.g. how better control can reduce the likelihood for complications) should be increased to the maximum. As the acquisition of knowledge does not guarantee better self-management and patients' health beliefs are not fixed  patients' education complemented with such behavior modification strategies as motivation, support and encouragement are needed on a regular basis. Initial high standards of self-care may wane, and reasons for this need to be explored with the patient and new targets set.
The doctor's consultation style influences patients' compliance. He should be friendly, less dominant, listen more to his patients and encourage them to ask questions. Patients' false beliefs (e.g. honey and dates do not raise blood sugar because they were mentioned in the Qur'an) and concerns (e.g. insulin causes renal failure) should be addressed.
Hypertension and Dyslipidemia
Hypertension is common among diabetic patients and is a risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, nephropathy, and retinopathy.  Most clinicians would have a low threshold for the treatment of hypertension among diabetics. Systolic pressure should be under 140 mmHg and diastolic pressure under 90 mmHg. In diabetic patients with nephropathy or with evidence of other micro- or macrovascular complications, a blood pressure > 130/85 mmHg is considered abnormal. In these patients, some evidence points to an advantage of reducing blood pressure to lower levels such as < 120/80 mmHg.  However, these lower blood pressure levels may result in orthostatic hypotension (e.g. in patients with autonomic dysfunction or the elderly) or an increase in serum creatinine, especially in those with advanced renal insufficiency or renovascular disease.  Mild hypertension should be treated initially with weight reduction, a low sodium diet, exercise, and smoking cessation.  If this treatment fails, an anti-hypertensive drug should be used. Angiotensin converting enzymes inhibitors (ACED are the drugs of first choice  especially for patients with albuminurea (<30 mg/24 hrs).  However, serum creatinine levels and electrolytes should be measured one week after initiation of ACEI, whenever the dose changes, and at least four times a year.  Hypertriglyceridemia and/or hypercholesterolemia should be treated with a lipid-lowering diet, weight loss, and smoking cessation. Failure to respond to these strategies justifies referral to the specialist.
| References|| |
|1.||Al-Nuaim A, AI-Rubeaan K, Al-Mazrou Y, Khoja T, AI-Alfas O, AI-Daghari N. National chronic metabolic diseases survey 1995. Jointly published by Ministry of Health and King Saud University. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. |
|2.||El-Hazmi MAF, Warsy AS, Al-Swailem AR, AlSwailem AM, Sulaimani R. Diabetes Mellitus and impaired Glucose Tolerance in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 1996; 16(4):381-5. |
|3.||King H, Rewers M. WHO Ad Hoc Diabetes Reporting Group. Global estimates for prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in adults. Diabetes Care 1993; 16:157-77. |
|4.||Famuyiwa OO, Sulimani RA, Laajam MA, AlJasser SJ, Mekki MO, et al. Diabetes Mellitus in Saudi Arabia: The clinical pattern and complications in 1,000 patients. Ann Saudi Med 1992; 12(2):140-51. |
|5.||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(14): 977-86. |
|6.||Al-Shehri ST. Direct costs of Diabetes Mellitus. Estimation of direct cost of health services offered to adult diabetic patients in Ministry of Health Centres in AI-Khobar area [dissertation]. AI-Khobar: King Faisal Univ.; 1995. |
|7.||Surridge DHC, Willimas EDL, Lawson JS. Psychiatric Aspects of Diabetes Mellitus. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 145:269-76. |
|8.||Grimshaw JAI, Russell IT. Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines II: Ensuring guidelines change medical practice. Quality in Health Care 1994;3:45-52. |
|9.||Worral G, Chaulk P. Hope or experience? Clinical practice guidelines in family practice. J Fam Pract 1996; 42(4):353-6. |
|10.||American Diabetes Association. Drash AR (ed.). Diabetes Care 1996, Volume 19, Supplement 1: 51-113. |
|11.||American Diabetes Association. Physicians' guide to insulin dependent (type 1) diabetes-diagnosis and treatment. Sperling NIA (ed.). American Diabetes Association, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, 1988: 2028. |
|12.||American Diabetes Association. Physicians' guide to non-insulin dependent (type 11) diabetes diagnosis and treatment. Rifkin 11 (ed.). American Diabetes Association, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, 1988: 109-15. |
|13.||Expert Committee of the Canadian Diabetes Advisory Board. Clinical practice guidelines for treatment of diabetes mellitus. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 147(5):697-712. |
|14.||American Diabetes Association. Consensus Development Conference on the diagnosis and management of Nephropathy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1994; 17(11):1357- 61. |
|15.||15.Evidence-Based Care Resource Group.based care: 1. Setting priorities: how important is this problem? Can Med Assoc J 1994; 150: 124954. |
|16.||Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidencebased care: 2. Setting guidelines: how should we manage this problem? Can hind Assoc J 1994; 150: 1417-23. |
|17.||Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidencebased care: 3. Measuring performance: how are we managing this problem? Can Aced Assoc J 1994; 150: 1575-82. |
|18.||Al-Faris EA. Diabetes Mellitus. The scientific committee of Quality Assurance in Primary Health Care chaired by Dr. Yagob Al-Mazrou. Quality Assurance in Primary Health Care Manual 1994; Riyadh, Dar Al-Hilal Printing Press: 197-225. |
|19.||Waine C. Management in general practice. In Waine C (Ed.). Why not care for your diabetic patients? The Royal College of General Practitioners 1988: 228-35. |
|20.||Tang FSN, Keen H. Diagnostic criteria, classification and presentation of diabetes. In Besser GM (ed.). Clinical Diabetes - An illustrated guide. London: Lippincott Company; 6.1-6.14. |
|21.||Compliance. In: Sackiet DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P (eds). Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 194-222. |
|22.||Maureen IH. Classification and diagnostic criteria for diabetes. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Diabetes Data Group. Diabetes in America 1985; NIH publication No. 85-1468:110. |
|23.||Shaman CR. Dietary management of diabetes mellitus. Galloway JA, Pot vin HJ, Shumn CR (eds.). Diabetes mellitus Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana 1998: R85-104. |
|24.||Skyler JS. Recent advances in insulin therapy. Marshall SM, Home PD, Rizza RA (eds). TheDiabetes Annual /9 1995. Elsevier Science BV, 193-209. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1], [Table 2]