Skip Navigation



QJM Advance Access published online on August 18, 2008

QJM, doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcn069
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/10/777    most recent
hcn069v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hanna, F.W.F.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, P.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hanna, F.W.F.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, P.W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Gestational diabetes screening and glycaemic management; National survey on behalf of the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists

F.W.F. Hanna1, J.R. Peters2, J. Harlow3 and P.W. Jones4

From the 1University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent ST2 6QG, UK, 2University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK, 3Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, UK and 4Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Address correspondence to Dr F.W.F. Hanna, Consultant Physician & Endocrinologist, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent ST2 6QG, UK. email: fahmy.hanna{at}uhns.nhs.uk

Received 30 January 2008 and in revised form 18 March 2008


   Abstract

Background: There is no UK consensus for screening methodology, diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Aim: To evaluate routine practice for GDM management across the UK.

Methods: Questionnaires were sent to all members of the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists. They were asked to describe how patients were screened for GDM, the diagnostic criteria and subsequent management and clinical targets. Centres that did not respond were followed up by personal communication. Variability trends within regions were assessed.

Results: The response rate averaged 46% nationally (35–67%). Most (85%) units hold a joint clinic, regardless of the size. Most (82%) centres routinely screen for GDM; half universally and half screening high risk pregnancies only. Screening tests, cut-off values, timings and subsequent action vary widely. The first screening test to be used varies, with 40% using glycosuria, followed by random plasma glucose (RPG)(28%), high risk features (11%) then FPG in 6%. Cut-off values for both random and plasma glucose as screening methods also vary. The 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the most likely confirmatory test to be used if initial screening is positive; however, clinicians rely on different cut-off values and timing. Most (95%) centres routinely assess foetal growth. Postpartum screening is undertaken by 90%, using a 75 g OGTT (93%). Most (90%) centres counsel patients about their high risk for further GDM and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Variability trends in any of the responses could not be detected between different regions in the UK.

Conclusion: Standards for GDM screening and management vary significantly across the UK. Although most centres utilize the 75 g OGTT to confirm the diagnosis, there is no consistency in its interpretation. This survey confirms the urgent need for consensus guideline development.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.