They requested a technical document drafted by experts and discussed by a jury, which they could approve as an official document around the views of scientific societies. The Editorial Team, which MI 2 numbered 20 diabetologists with a Coordinating Committee of four diabetologists, edited the draft of the texts specific topics. (Italian Federation of General Practitioners/Italian Society of Family Physicians)Gerardo MedeaSIMG: (Italian Society of General Medicine)Enrico MongiovSIPU: (Italian Society of Podiatrists)Michele MuggeoSID: (Italian Society of Diabetology)Nicoletta MusacchioAMD: (Italian Association of Diabetologists)Gianfranco MI 2 PaganoSID: (Italian Society of Diabetology)Maria Antonietta PellegriniAMD: (Italian Association of Diabetologists)Paola PisantiPlanning General Directorate, The Ministry of HealthRoberto PontremoliSIN: (Italian Society of Nephrology)Gabriele RiccardiSID: (Italian Society of Diabetology)Simona SappiaCnAMC: (National Coordinating Board for Chronic Disease Patients Associations. Active Citizenship Network)Giorgio SestiSID: (Italian Society of Diabetology)Roberto SivieriQuality Issue ExpertAngela TestiProfessor of Political Economics and Economics Applied to Social and Healthcare Service Production SectorsVincenzo TrischittaSID: (Italian Society of Diabetology)Giacomo VespasianiAMD: (Italian Association of Diabetologists) proposed herein have been drafted by two Italian scientific diabetes societies (AMD and SID) to provide clinicians, patients, researchers and those involved in diabetes care with recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes and its complications. They also propose treatment goalssubstantiated by extensive scientific evidenceon which therapeutic decisions can be based and, treatment quality evaluation tools adapted to the Italian framework. They are the scientific reference model for diabetes care, both concerning goals and processes. The project proposes to share common treatment models and goals for the care of diabetic patients in our MI 2 practical national framework with Italian diabetologists and all medical and non medical professionals involved in diabetes care. can be deemed as a scientific landmark for integrated management, disease management, professional accreditation and hospitals daily need to create effective and efficient diagnostic and care pathways. The level of scientific assessments behind every recommendation has been classified, as envisaged by theNational Plan for Guidelines(http://www.pnlg.it) (Table?1). The document enlarges on desirable goals in the management of most diabetics; individual preferences, comorbidity and other factors related to the individual patient can, however, justify the various decisions. Moreover, the are not designed to prevent MI 2 either further diagnostic investigations or patient management by other specialists, when required. For detailed information, please refer both to the pointed out guidelines and to recommendations listed in each chapter. Table?1 Evidence levels and recommendation strength published by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has long been a landmark for diabetologists due to its pragmatic features, systematic updates and recommendations furnished with evidence levels. However, not always can treatment standards, which suit other populations and interpersonal and healthcare situations, be applied to the Italian framework; moreover, there are certain divergent views in the international diabetological community and a national stand concerning the clinical application of these points is required. On the basis of indications provided by the International Diabetes Federation (The IDF does not recommend reinventing the wheel, but does strongly encourage the redesign of the wheel to suit local circumstances), derived guidelines have thus been drafted for obvious reasons related to the rational use of both human and economic resources. Furnished with levels of evidence and recommendations, they are based on the crucial evaluation of the ADAs initial 2006 paper, other international guidelines and, when necessary, the primary sources available in literature, adapting them and targeting them at the Italian framework. Moreover, the paper integrates previously existing Italian guidelines, data and notes on the specific Italian situation and aspects that are not developed in the ADAs paper. Process and outcome indicators have been added to the recommendations whenever possiblethey have already been Rabbit polyclonal to CIDEB tested in the AMD data fileto provide assessment tools. The Consensus Conference Method, which requires a jury to discuss and evaluate a proposal presented by a team of experts appointed by both AMD and SID, was chosen to reach the papers final draft. The process The process that led to these is usually briefly described below. The project was commissioned by AMD and SIDs National Steering Committees with Diabete Italias approval. They requested a technical document drafted by experts and discussed by a jury, which they could approve as an official document around the views of scientific societies. The Editorial Team, which numbered 20 diabetologists with a Coordinating Committee of four diabetologists, edited the draft of the texts specific topics. The Editorial Team resorted to the.