The DAFNE project grew out of dissatisfaction with the
care and outcomes achieved for Type 1 diabetes in the UK and poor quality
of the research and evidence on which much current practice is based.
In 1997, 3 diabetes units (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northumbria Healthcare
Trust and Kings College Hospital, London) began to discuss their own
dissatisfaction with current achievements in diabetes control, the reasons
for this and search for evidence on how they might improve. The outcomes
for diabetes in young people and levels of glycaemic control in the UK were
poor when compared with our European neighbours, in addition the impact
of diabetes on quality of life was substantially negative. [16]
The DCCT [14] in 1993 had posed a dilemma for UK diabetes teams.
It appeared that the long-term benefits of improved glycaemic control could
only be achieved at the risk of a 3-fold increase in short-term severe hypoglycaemia.
Many clinicians were reluctant to impose this on their patients and many
patients were anxious about the risks.
A review of the effectiveness of educational interventions sponsored by
Diabetes UK concluded that imaginative, non-didactic approaches to education
were most likely to be effective. However the benefits achieved were small
and the overriding message was that studies were poorly described and thus
would be difficult to evaluate or replicate.
The 3 UK teams were aware of the structured education and training programmes
developed by the late Michael Bergers team at the WHO Coordinating
Centre in Düsseldorf. However, the prevailing attitude in UK diabetes
circles was that these programmes would be prescriptive and
thus unsuitable, unworkable and possibly harmful and unethical in the UK.
Eight sceptical multidisciplinary diabetes professionals, from the 3 units,
and including a German-speaking doctor, made a structured observational
visit to Düsseldorf in June 1998. They were able to learn about
and question the work of the Unit, and observed an entire 5-day training
programme. They became convinced that the principles and practice of the
Unit and the published evidence were sound, and that the programme would
be suitable for the UK and should be tested. |