@article {Burrows65, author = {P.J. Burrows and P.J. Gray and A-L. Kinmonth and D.J. Payton and G.A. Walpole and R.J. Walton and D. Wilson and G. Woodbine}, title = {Who cares for the patient with diabetes? Presentation and follow-up in seven Southampton practices}, volume = {37}, number = {295}, pages = {65--69}, year = {1987}, publisher = {Royal College of General Practitioners}, abstract = {A notes survey was undertaken by a group of eight general practitioners in seven Southampton practices to study the mode of presentation and follow-up of the diabetic patients on the lists of 24 doctors. The 431 known diabetic patients were classified as non-insulin-dependent (67\%), insulin-dependent (20\%), or, if they had commenced their insulin more than a month after the diagnosis had been made, {\textquoteright}insulin-treated{\textquoteright} (13\%). This classification allowed characterization of the truly insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent patients. Non-insulin-dependent diabetics were older than insulin-dependent diabetics and had first presented at a greater age. Most patients in each treatment group presented with classical diabetic symptoms, diabetes-related infections, or recognized complications. The majority of these were diagnosed in general practice. However, over half of the asymptomatic non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients had been diagnosed by routine blood or urine testing in hospital. After 1979 fewer non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients were referred to hospital for follow-up at diagnosis than before 1975. Most non-insulin-treated diabetics were followed up in general practice whereas most patients treated with or dependent on insulin were followed up in hospital clinics. Twenty-two per cent of all patients received diabetic care from both their general practitioner and hospital outpatient departments but 20\% received no regular diabetic follow-up at all. One year after the initial study, 4\% of patients were still without regular review, and 27 more patients had been identified who would have qualified for the original audit.}, issn = {0035-8797}, URL = {https://bjgp.org/content/37/295/65}, eprint = {https://bjgp.org/content/37/295/65.full.pdf}, journal = {British Journal of General Practice} }