metricas
Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.) RECALSEEN 2024. Resources and quality in the endocrinology and nutrition units o...
Journal Information
Visits
502
Vol. 73. Issue 4.
(April 2026)
Special article
Full text access

RECALSEEN 2024. Resources and quality in the endocrinology and nutrition units of the National Health System of Spain

RECALSEEN 2024. La atención al paciente en las unidades de endocrinología y nutrición del Sistema Nacional de Salud
Visits
502
M. Julia Ocón Bretóna, Juan José Díezb, Gabriel Olveira Fusterc, Alberto Fernández Martínezd, Alba Galdón Sanz-Pastore, Nuria Vilarrasa Garcíaf, Beatriz Lardies Sánchezg, Emma Anda Apiñanizh, Francisco Pita Gutiérrezi, Manuel Gahete Ortizj, Juan José López Gómezk, Rosa Casañ Fernándezl, Miguel Ángel Rubio Herreram, Náyade del Pradon, Javier Escalada San Martíno, Francisco Javier Elola Somozan,
Corresponding author
fjelola@movistar.es

Corresponding author.
, Ignacio Bernabeu Morónp
a Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain
b Vicepresidente de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
c Vicepresidente de Investigación de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
d Secretario de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
e Tesorera de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
f Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
g Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
h Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Hospital Universitario de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
i Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
j Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Universidad de Córdoba/Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
k Vocal de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología Nutrición, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain
l Vocal de la Fundación de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
m Vocal de la Fundación de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
n Fundación Instituto para la Mejora de la Asistencia Sanitaria (IMAS), Madrid; Cátedra IMAS-Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
o Presidente de la Fundación de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
p Presidente de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain
Ver más
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (8)
Table 1. Structural indicators of endocrinology and nutrition services and units.
Tables
Table 2. Resource indicators of endocrinology and nutrition services.
Tables
Table 3. Service portfolio of E-N S/U: functional units, specialty clinics, and techniques/procedures.
Tables
Table 4. Activity of endocrinology and nutrition services. 2023.
Tables
Table 5. Teaching, training, and research indicators of E-N S/U. 2023.
Tables
Table 6. Best-practice indicators of E-N S/U. 2023.
Tables
Table 7. Evolution of age- and sex-adjusted rates of diabetes mellitus “preventive” indicators. NHS hospitals, 2007–2022.
Tables
Table 8. Hospital indicators. Discharges for DM, 2022. Autonomous communities.
Tables
Additional material (1)
Abstract
Objectives

RECALSEEN analyses the structure, activity and results of the Endocrinology and Nutrition Services and Units (S-U_EyN) of the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). This article presents data collected from the 2024 survey, as well as activity and outcome indicators from the SNHS Minimum Basic Data Set (CMBD) for 2007–2022.

Material and methods

Descriptive cross-sectional study of S-U_EyN in general acute care hospitals of the SNHS. Data obtained through an ad hoc survey referring to data from 2023 and discharges from S-U_EyN recorded in the CMBD (2022) were used.

Results

A total of 116 responses were obtained from S-U_EyN of 160 general acute care hospitals in the SNHS (72%). Fifty-six per cent of the S-U_EyN respondents were services or clinical management units. The average number of endocrinologists per S-U_EyN department was 8.4 (5.4), with an estimated rate of 2.9 endocrinologists per 100,000 inhabitants. In 74% of hospitals there is a Clinical Nutrition Unit (dependent on the S-U_EyN in 93% of cases) and 39% of S-U_EyNs have a day hospital. The portfolio of services offered by S-U_EyN is closely related to the complexity of the hospital. There is a significant trend to decline in hospitalisations for endocrine and nutritional diseases. Notable differences were found in resources, activity and outcomes between hospitals and autonomous communities. In relation to quality management and the implementation of good practices, there was still considerable room for improvement. The trend to worsening of short- and long-term complication indicators for diabetes mellitus in the period 2016–2022 should be analysed.

Conclusions

RECALSEEN provides relevant information on S-U_EyN and the evolution of endocrinology and nutrition care in the SNHS.

Keywords:
Endocrinology and nutrition services
Structure
Activity
Quality
Resumen
Objetivos

RECALSEEN analiza la estructura, actividad y resultados de los Servicios y Unidades de Endocrinología y Nutrición (S-U_EyN) del Sistema Nacional de Salud español (SNS). En este artículo se presentan los datos recogidos de la encuesta de 2024 así como los indicadores de actividad y resultados procedentes del Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos (CMBD) del SNS de 2007–2022.

Material y métodos

Estudio descriptivo transversal de los S-U_EyN realizado en hospitales generales de agudos del SNS. Se han utilizado datos obtenidos mediante una encuesta “ad hoc” referida a datos de 2023 y de las altas dadas por los S-U_EyN registradas en el conjunto mínimo de datos (CMBD) del SNS (2022).

Resultados

Se obtuvieron 116 respuestas de S-U_EyN sobre un total de 160 hospitales generales de agudos del SNS (72%). El 56% de los S-U_EyN que respondieron eran servicios o unidades de gestión clínica. El promedio de endocrinólogos por S-U_EyN fue de 8,4 (5,4), siendo la tasa estimada de endocrinólogos por cada 100.000 habitantes de 2,9. En el 74% de los hospitales existe una Unidad de Nutrición Clínica (dependiente del S-U_EyN en el 93% de los casos) y un 39% de los S-U_EyN disponen de hospital de día. La cartera de servicios de los S-U_EyN está estrechamente relacionada con la complejidad del hospital. Se observa una significativa tendencia de disminución de las hospitalizaciones por enfermedades endocrinas y nutricionales. Se encontraron notables diferencias en recursos, actividad y resultados entre hospitales y Comunidades Autónomas. En relación con la gestión de la calidad e implantación de buenas prácticas seguía existiendo un amplio margen de mejora. Debe analizarse el cambio de tendencia al empeoramiento, en el período 2016–2022, de los indicadores de complicaciones a corto y largo plazo de la diabetes mellitus.

Conclusiones

RECALSEEN suministra una información relevante sobre los S-U_EyN y la evolución de la asistencia en endocrinología y nutrición en el SNS.

Palabras clave:
Servicios de endocrinología y nutrición
Estructura
Actividad
Calidad
Full Text
Introduction

RECALSEEN is a project of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN) launched in 2017 in a context anticipating major challenges derived from population aging, the increasing prevalence of specialty-related diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and malnutrition, and the progressive technification of diagnostic and therapeutic processes.1–3 The need to obtain information on the resources, activity, and quality of Endocrinology and Nutrition Services and Units (E-N S/U) to formulate data-driven health policy proposals has become even more evident as a consequence of the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on health care services, including the need for transformation and the acceleration of health care “digitalization.”4 The RECALSEEN project, developed by SEEN in collaboration with the IMAS Foundation, aims to gather information on the structure, organization, and functioning of E-N S/U, as well as on the care provided for endocrine and nutritional diseases within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) to develop proposals to improve quality and efficiency based on available data. The RECALSEEN project has 2 main data sources: the RECALSEEN survey and the National Health System’s Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS). The project was conducted in 2017, 2021, and 2024.1,5–7 The objective of this article is to present the most relevant results obtained in 2024. The full report is available on the SEEN website.8

Material and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted among E-N S/U within the Spanish NHS. The study universe included E-N S/U located in general acute-care hospitals with 200 or more installed beds; information from E-N S/U in hospitals with <200 installed beds that responded to the survey was also incorporated. The questionnaire used for data collection is presented in Appendix B (Supplementary data). A preconfigured Excel® form was sent to the heads of the E-N S/U. The management and validation of the questionnaire have been described elsewhere.1,6 Survey data correspond to the year 2023. The survey was open from July 15th, 2024, to January 31st, 2025. MBDS data correspond to the period 2007–2022.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative variables are described using frequency distributions (number of cases and percentages), and quantitative variables using mean, median, standard deviation (SD), and interquartile range (IQR). The chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables, while the Student t-test was used for quantitative variables. Trend analyses were performed using Poisson regression. Risk adjustments were performed using multilevel logistic regression models,9 with age, sex, and the Charlson index as adjustment variables,10 in the absence of a specific adjustment model; hospital or autonomous community was included as the second level, as appropriate. To distinguish between high- and low-volume centers (based on the number of episodes managed), a k-means clustering algorithm was used.

In all tests, the null hypothesis was rejected at an alpha error of less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0.

ResultsSurvey

A total of 116 E-N S/U responded to the RECALSEEN survey, 115 of them from NHS hospitals, out of a total of 160 general acute-care NHS hospitals (72%). Fourteen hospitals had <200 installed beds; 47 had between 200 and 500 beds; 42 had between 500 and 1000 beds; and 12 E-N S/U were located in hospitals with >1000 beds. The mean number of installed beds in hospitals hosting E-N S/U was 584 (353). All responding E-N S/U were included in the analyses. The distribution of responses by autonomous community is shown in Appendix B, Table 1 (Supplementary data). The estimated population within the catchment areas of responding E-N S/U represented 72% of the total Spanish population as of July 1st, 2023 (INE). The sample obtained represents >50% of the total hospitals, installed beds, and population served in all autonomous communities except Castile-La Mancha, the Region of Murcia, and Extremadura. The reliability of region-specific indicators depends on the sample size relative to the total population, with greater reliability as it approaches 100%.

Structure and resources

Among the E-N S/U completing the survey, 56% were clinical management services or units, 29% were sections, and 11% had no independent organizational entity. A total of 74% of hospitals had a Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics Unit (CNDU), and in 93% of these hospitals, the CNDU depended on the E-N S/U. A total of 39% of E-N S/U had a day hospital.

The mean number of endocrinologists assigned to E-N S/U was 8.4 ± 4.5. The estimated rate of endocrinologists was 2.9 per 100,000 inhabitants in the NHS in 2023, below the rate estimated by the Spanish Ministry of Health,3,5 although that estimate includes the private sector.11

A total of 98% of E-N S/U had registered nurses assigned to diabetes education, with a mean of 3.1 ± 1.9 nursing professionals; 65.5% had nurses dedicated to clinical nutrition (mean, 2 ± 1.5); 51% had nurses assigned to obesity education (mean, 1.4 ± 1.1); and 58.6% had dietitians/nutritionists (mean, 2.6 ± 2.6). Significant differences in structure and resources were found according to hospital complexity (Tables 1 and 2). However, no statistically significant differences were observed by hospital size regarding teleconsultation with patients (96% of E-N S/U), remote download and assessment of laboratory and clinical parameters (78%), or collaboration with primary care. A total of 83% of E-N S/U performed triage of consultation requests, with no significant differences by hospital size.

Table 1.

Structural indicators of endocrinology and nutrition services and units.

E-N S/U structure  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P value 
  N = 116  N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Installed beds (hospital)a  584 (353)  131 (33)  360 (78)  715 (150)  1,179 (138)  < .001 
Population in the catchment area of the endocrinology service/unita  303,463 (175,935)  119,597 (77,090)  227,703 (131,233)  371,433 (132,298)  480,282 (171,346)  < .001 
Total number of endocrinologists assigned to the servicea  8.4 (5.4)  2.6 (1.7)  5.8 (3.9)  11.3 (4.6)  13.3 (4.4)  .080 
Endocrinologists per 100,000 inhabitantsa  2.85 (1.46)  2.38 (0.92)  2.74 (1.97)  3.14 (1.07)  2.89 (0.88)  .375 
Endocrinologists per 100 installed beds in the centera  1.54 (0.77)  1.96 (1.06)  1.56 (0.84)  1.58 (0.62)  1.12 (0.34)  .014 
Nutrition unit  86 (74.1)  7 (50)  27 (58.7)  33 (91.7)  19 (95)  < .001 
No. of clinic roomsa  5.6 (4.5)  2.8 (1.4)  4.1 (2.6)  6.8 (3.5)  8.9 (7.8)  < .001 
Day hospital dependent on the E-N S/U  45 (38.8)  4 (28.6)  13 (28.3)  16 (44.4)  12 (60)  .071 
% E-N S/U with assigned beds  79 (68.1)  4 (28.6)  27 (58.7)  33 (91.7)  15 (75)  < .001 
No. of ultrasound machines in the E-N S/Ua  2.2 (1.2)  1.5 (0.9)  1.5 (0.8)  2.3 (0.9)  3.3 (1.7)  < .001 
% of E-N S/U with diabetes nurse educatorsᵇ  114 (98.3)  14 (100)  44 (95.7)  36 (100)  20 (100)  .377 
No. of diabetes nurse educatorsa,b  3.1 (1.9)  1.4 (0.5)  2.5 (1.4)  3.8 (1.9)  4.2 (2.2)  < .001 
% of E-N S/U with nurses dedicated to nutritionᵇ  76 (65.5)  2 (14.3)  23 (50)  33 (91.7)  18 (90)  < .001 
No. of nurses dedicated to nutritiona,b  2.0 (1.5)  2.5 (0.7)  1.3 (0.9)  1.9 (1.2)  3.2 (2.0)  .001 
% of E-N S/U with nurses providing obesity educationᵇ  59 (50.9)  3 (21.4)  22 (47.8)  21 (58.3)  13 (65)  .059 
No. of nurses providing obesity educationa,b  1.4 (1.1)  1.7 (0.6)  1.3 (1.4)  1.5 (1.1)  1.4 (0.7)  .938 
% of E-N S/U with nurses in functional testing  69 (59.5)  5 (35.7)  22 (47.8)  24 (66.7)  18 (90)  .002 
No. of nurses in functional testinga  1.0 (0.6)  1.2 (0.4)  1.1 (0.6)  0.9 (0.6)  1.1 (0.7)  .680 
% of E-N S/U with food scientists (bromatologists)  13 (11.2)  0 (0)  0 (0)  4 (11.1)  9 (45)  < .001 
No. of food scientists (bromatologists)a  1.2 (0.4)  — (—)  — (—)  1.3 (0.5)  1.2 (0.4)  .921 
% of E-N S/U with dietitians–nutritionists (university degree)  68 (58.6)  7 (50)  23 (50)  25 (69.4)  13 (65)  .271 
No. of dietitians–nutritionistsa  2.6 (2.6)  0.9 (0.2)  2.3 (1.7)  2.7 (2.9)  4.0 (3.7)  .073 
% of E-N S/U with dietetics technicians  29 (25)  2 (14.3)  7 (15.2)  10 (27.8)  10 (50)  .018 
No. of dietetics techniciansa  5.2 (3.3)  3.0 (1.4)  3.1 (2.5)  5.8 (2.9)  6.4 (3.7)  .142 

No.: number; E-N S/U: endocrinology and nutrition services or units.

a

Indicators expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

The distribution of nurses by activity is partly conventional, because overlap of nursing functions (and with dietitians–nutritionists) is not uncommon.

Table 2.

Resource indicators of endocrinology and nutrition services.

Clinical resources  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P valueb 
  N = 116  N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Scheduled teleconsultation with patients (%)  111 (95.7)  14 (100)  43 (93.5)  35 (97.2)  19 (95)  .705 
Real-time telephone visit (%)  108 (93.1)  14 (100)  42 (91.3)  34 (94.4)  18 (90)  .644 
Real-time video visit (%)  23 (19.8)  0 (0)  9 (19.6)  8 (22.2)  6 (30)  .180 
Asynchronous visit via email (%)  48 (41.4)  4 (28.6)  14 (30.4)  18 (50)  12 (60)  .066 
Remote download and review of laboratory and clinical parameters (%)  91 (78.4)  10 (71.4)  34 (73.9)  30 (83.3)  17 (85)  .576 
Day hospital (%)  45 (38.8)  4 (28.6)  13 (28.3)  16 (44.4)  12 (60)  .071 
Weekly day-hospital hoursa  37 (24)  15 (17)  34 (14)  40 (27)  43 (26)  .187 
No. of day-hospital chairs/placesa  3 (2)  2 (1)  3 (2)  3 (2)  4 (3)  .208 
Endocrinology and nutrition beds (%)  79 (68.1)  4 (28.6)  27 (58.7)  33 (91.7)  15 (75)  < .001 
No. of endocrinology and nutrition bedsa  3 (2)  2 (2)  2 (2)  4 (2)  4 (3)  .006 
Ultrasound machines specifically assigned to the unit (%)  94 (81)  8 (57.1)  35 (76.1)  33 (91.7)  18 (90)  .022 
No. of ultrasound machines in the unita  2 (1)  2 (1)  2 (1)  2 (1)  3 (2)  < .001 
Any method of coordination with primary care (%)  106 (91.4)  12 (85.7)  43 (93.5)  33 (91.7)  18 (90)  .830 
Email (%)  76 (65.5)  9 (64.3)  24 (52.2)  26 (72.2)  17 (85)  .052 
Mobile phone (%)  61 (52.6)  7 (50)  22 (47.8)  20 (55.6)  12 (60)  .795 
Travel to the health center (%)  37 (31.9)  3 (21.4)  14 (30.4)  13 (36.1)  7 (35)  .769 
Videoconference (%)  22 (19)  2 (14.3)  9 (19.6)  6 (16.7)  5 (25)  .848 
Joint referral-criteria protocols (%)  90 (77.6)  6 (42.9)  35 (76.1)  31 (86.1)  18 (90)  .005 
Screening/triage of consultation requests (%)  96 (82.8)  9 (64.3)  37 (80.4)  32 (88.9)  18 (90)  .157 
Inpatient consult service for other hospital departments (%)  87 (75)  9 (64.3)  29 (63)  33 (91.7)  16 (80)  .019 
No. of physicians assigned to the “inpatient consult service” (FTE)a  2 (1)  1 (1)  1 (1)  2 (1)  3 (1)  < .001 
Endocrinology on-call coverage (%)  5 (4.3)  0 (0)  1 (2.2)  3 (8.3)  1 (5)  .462 
Availability of urgent 24-h care for endocrine and nutrition diseases (%)  10 (8.6)  1 (7.1)  1 (2.2)  5 (13.9)  3 (15)  .190 
Extended endocrinology hours (%)  38 (32.8)  5 (35.7)  12 (26.1)  14 (38.9)  7 (35)  .649 

Blank responses were considered “No.” SD, standard deviation; No., number; E-N S/U, endocrinology and nutrition services or units.

a

Indicators expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

Comparison across E-N S/U by hospital group.

Service portfolio

Table 3 illustrates the service portfolio in relation to functional units, specialized clinics, and techniques and procedures. In 40% of E-N S/U, the CNDU was formally established as a unit/section, whereas formalization as functional units was lower for diabetes (24%) and general endocrinology (29%). Regarding specialized clinics, >50% of E-N S/U had dedicated diabetes clinics (65.5%), particularly insulin pump therapy and new technologies (63.8%), diabetes and pregnancy (62.1%), morbid obesity/bariatric surgery (58.6%), and nutritional treatment of chronic diseases (52.6%). The most frequently performed procedures (> 70%) were thyroid ultrasound, insulin pump therapy, enteral/parenteral nutrition, bioimpedance, and dynamometry. Higher-volume centers had significantly more functional units, specialized clinics, and procedures. A gap was observed between the “complete” service portfolio proposed by SEEN12 and the resources available in 2023 (Table 2 of the Supplementary data).

Table 3.

Service portfolio of E-N S/U: functional units, specialty clinics, and techniques/procedures.

Service portfolio  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P valuea 
  N = 116  N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Units/sections             
Clinical nutrition (%)  46 (39.7)  2 (14.3)  8 (17.4)  20 (55.6)  16 (80)  < .001 
Diabetes (%)  28 (24.1)  2 (14.3)  5 (10.9)  13 (36.1)  8 (40)  .013 
General endocrinology (%)  34 (29.3)  2 (14.3)  6 (13)  15 (41.7)  11 (55)  .001 
Other (%)  20 (17.2)  1 (7.1)  4 (8.7)  9 (25)  6 (30)  .067 
Specialty clinics             
Multidisciplinary eating-disorders clinic (%)  31 (26.7)  0 (0)  5 (10.9)  17 (47.2)  9 (45)  < .001 
Inborn errors of metabolism (%)  16 (13.8)  0 (0)  0 (0)  9 (25)  7 (35)  < .001 
Diabetic foot (%)  42 (36.2)  2 (14.3)  11 (23.9)  18 (50)  11 (55)  .008 
Nutritional treatment of chronic diseases (cystic fibrosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, …) (%)  61 (52.6)  1 (7.1)  12 (26.1)  30 (83.3)  18 (90)  < .001 
Diabetes (%)  76 (65.5)  6 (42.9)  25 (54.3)  30 (83.3)  15 (75)  .009 
Type 1 diabetes (%)  63 (54.3)  6 (42.9)  20 (43.5)  22 (61.1)  15 (75)  .071 
CSII and new technologies (%)  74 (63.8)  3 (21.4)  23 (50)  31 (86.1)  17 (85)  < .001 
Multidisciplinary pituitary disease (%)  48 (41.4)  1 (7.1)  6 (13)  24 (66.7)  17 (85)  < .001 
Neuroendocrine tumors (%)  45 (38.8)  1 (7.1)  6 (13)  22 (61.1)  16 (80)  < .001 
Adrenal disease (%)  35 (30.2)  1 (7.1)  5 (10.9)  19 (52.8)  10 (50)  < .001 
Multidisciplinary morbid obesity/bariatric surgery (%)  68 (58.6)  2 (14.3)  18 (39.1)  31 (86.1)  17 (85)  < .001 
Multidisciplinary diabetes and pregnancy (%)  72 (62.1)  1 (7.1)  27 (58.7)  28 (77.8)  16 (80)  < .001 
Bone metabolism (%)  15 (12.9)  1 (7.1)  2 (4.3)  7 (19.4)  5 (25)  .061 
Multidisciplinary gender identity (%)  27 (23.3)  0 (0)  5 (10.9)  12 (33.3)  10 (50)  < .001 
Gender identity specialty clinic (%)  45 (38.8)  1 (7.1)  12 (26.1)  18 (50)  14 (70)  < .001 
Multidisciplinary thyroid cancer (%)  59 (50.9)  3 (21.4)  13 (28.3)  26 (72.2)  17 (85)  < .001 
Rapid-access thyroid nodule clinic (%)  66 (56.9)  4 (28.6)  18 (39.1)  29 (80.6)  15 (75)  < .001 
Lipids (%)  38 (32.8)  2 (14.3)  9 (19.6)  19 (52.8)  8 (40)  .005 
Fertility (%)  1 (0.9)  0 (0)  0 (0)  0 (0)  1 (5)  .184 
Surgical prehabilitation (%)  43 (37.1)  4 (28.6)  11 (23.9)  16 (44.4)  12 (60)  .027 
Oropharyngeal dysphagia (%)  45 (38.8)  3 (21.4)  12 (26.1)  18 (50)  12 (60)  .014 
Pediatric-to-adult transition clinic (%)  48 (41.4)  4 (28.6)  9 (19.6)  22 (61.1)  13 (65)  < .001 
Diabetes (%)  47 (40.5)  5 (35.7)  8 (17.4)  21 (58.3)  13 (65)  < .001 
Obesity (%)  13 (11.2)  0 (0)  2 (4.3)  8 (22.2)  3 (15)  .035 
Inborn errors of metabolism (%)  12 (10.3)  0 (0)  0 (0)  5 (13.9)  7 (35)  < .001 
Gender identity (%)  17 (14.7)  1 (7.1)  1 (2.2)  6 (16.7)  9 (45)  < .001 
Other (%)  15 (12.9)  1 (7.1)  2 (4.3)  5 (13.9)  7 (35)  .007 
Other (%)  27 (23.3)  4 (28.6)  9 (19.6)  7 (19.4)  7 (35)  .492 
Techniques and procedures             
Thyroid/parathyroid ultrasound (%)  98 (84.5)  10 (71.4)  33 (71.7)  35 (97.2)  20 (100)  .001 
Thyroid fine-needle aspiration  61 (52.6)  5 (35.7)  15 (32.6)  28 (77.8)  13 (65)  < .001 
Ethanol ablation of thyroid nodules (%)  32 (27.6)  2 (14.3)  11 (23.9)  12 (33.3)  7 (35)  .441 
Radiofrequency ablation of thyroid nodules (%)  16 (13.8)  0 (0)  4 (8.7)  8 (22.2)  4 (20)  .109 
Laser ablation of thyroid nodules (%)  3 (2.6)  0 (0)  0 (0)  2 (5.6)  1 (5)  .346 
Digital retinography (%)  41 (35.3)  2 (14.3)  12 (26.1)  20 (55.6)  7 (35)  .012 
CSII (%)  91 (78.4)  3 (21.4)  33 (71.7)  36 (100)  19 (95)  < .001 
Home enteral/parenteral nutrition (%)  91 (78.4)  7 (50)  31 (67.4)  34 (94.4)  19 (95)  < .001 
Nutritional ultrasound (%)  76 (65.5)  6 (42.9)  25 (54.3)  27 (75)  18 (90)  .006 
Bioelectrical impedance (%)  91 (78.4)  10 (71.4)  30 (65.2)  34 (94.4)  17 (85)  .011 
DXA (%)  30 (25.9)  2 (14.3)  7 (15.2)  11 (30.6)  10 (50)  .017 
CT software (%)  21 (18.1)  1 (7.1)  3 (6.5)  8 (22.2)  9 (45)  .001 
Handgrip dynamometry and functional tests (%)  92 (79.3)  8 (57.1)  32 (69.6)  35 (97.2)  17 (85)  .003 
Indirect calorimetry (%)  18 (15.5)  1 (7.1)  3 (6.5)  7 (19.4)  7 (35)  .020 
Carotid Doppler ultrasound (%)  33 (28.4)  1 (7.1)  7 (15.2)  16 (44.4)  9 (45)  .003 
Peripheral Doppler ultrasound (%)  43 (37.1)  3 (21.4)  10 (21.7)  18 (50)  12 (60)  .004 
ABPM (%)  56 (48.3)  6 (42.9)  15 (32.6)  21 (58.3)  14 (70)  .019 
Neurotester (%)  14 (12.1)  1 (7.1)  0 (0)  8 (22.2)  5 (25)  .004 
FibroScan (%)  14 (12.1)  1 (7.1)  5 (10.9)  5 (13.9)  3 (15)  .883 
Other (%)  16 (13.8)  4 (28.6)  4 (8.7)  6 (16.7)  2 (10)  .254 

Blank responses were considered “No.” CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; SD, standard deviation; No., number; E-N S/U, endocrinology and nutrition services or units; CT, computed tomography.

a

Comparison across E-N S/U by hospital group.

Activity

Table 4 illustrates clinical activity indicators for E-N S/U in 2023. Considerable variability among E-N S/U was observed across all activity indicators.

Table 4.

Activity of endocrinology and nutrition services. 2023.

Activity  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P valueb 
  N = 116  N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Clinical             
Discharges/year (conventional hospitalization) a  90 (70)  43 (43)  48 (48)  106 (65)  128 (75)  < .001 
Mean length of stay (conventional hospitalization) a  4.7 (2.2)  3.1 (1.0)  4.6 (1.9)  5.0 (2.5)  5.1 (2.3)  .218 
No. of patients/year in day hospitala  1,889 (2,420)  1,330 (1,526)  1,277 (1,641)  2,001 (2,311)  2,701 (3,499)  .465 
No. of inpatient consults/yeara  2,875 (3,514)  2,049 (4,252)  1,477 (1,848)  3,625 (3,897)  4,740 (3,762)  .003 
New patient visitsa  4,271 (3,135)  1,648 (1,132)  3,064 (1,753)  5,403 (3,365)  6,745 (3,428)  < .001 
New inpatient visitsa  2,685 (2,061)  1,007 (1,124)  2,259 (1,792)  3,529 (2,288)  3,129 (1,815)  .001 
New outpatient visitsa  2,456 (2,055)  970 (495)  1,650 (1,259)  3,343 (2,555)  3,339 (1,967)  .001 
Mean wait time (days) (as of 12/31/23)a  52 (67)  99 (152)  45 (35)  43 (35)  43 (34)  .040 
No. of follow-up visits/yeara  12,826 (9,134)  4,611 (2,178)  9,392 (5,719)  16,824 (10,646)  19,716 (7,936)  < .001 
No. of inpatient follow-up visits/yeara  9,808 (7,097)  3,225 (2,695)  7,437 (7,222)  11,667 (5,270)  15,327 (6,813)  < .001 
No. of outpatient follow-up visits/yeara  6,410 (3,874)  2,800 (2,054)  6,102 (4,047)  7,120 (3,841)  7,913 (3,341)  .054 
No. of non–face-to-face visitsa  3,324 (4,125)  1,365 (1,102)  2,314 (2,562)  3,771 (5,264)  5,203 (4,289)  .042 
Techniques and procedures             
No. of thyroid ultrasounds/yeara  915 (1,275)  789 (809)  582 (438)  947 (986)  1,452 (2,346)  .174 
No. of thyroid FNAs/yeara  319 (286)  255 (163)  210 (161)  304 (208)  514 (463)  .028 
No. of nodules treated with RFA/lasera  19 (20)  3 (—)  18 (25)  20 (18)  22 (23)  .872 
No. of nodule ethanol ablations/yeara  19 (27)  3 (2)  13 (14)  25 (33)  21 (30)  .538 
No. of functional tests/yeara  480 (653)  246 (327)  347 (796)  573 (600)  643 (684)  .372 
No. of bioelectrical impedance testsa  1,146 (2,057)  262 (124)  675 (662)  1,040 (1,359)  2,242 (3,762)  .139 
No. of retinographiesa  618 (788)  1,300 (990)  449 (403)  399 (417)  987 (1,311)  .203 
No. of CSII (patients)a  157 (134)  40 (57)  103 (121)  193 (143)  202 (109)  .009 
No. of ABPM testsa  97 (227)  31 (15)  66 (61)  197 (391)  43 (48)  .374 
No. of nutritional ultrasoundsa  377 (529)  47 (29)  235 (387)  311 (454)  722 (688)  .034 
No. of indirect calorimetry testsa  167 (252)  — (—)  102 (172)  125 (160)  248 (370)  .691 

Blank responses were considered “No.” SD, standard deviation; No., number; E-N S/U, endocrinology and nutrition services or units.

a

Indicators expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

Comparison across E-N S/U by hospital group.

Research and training

Table 5 shows indicators related to research and training activities of E-N S/U. A total of 55% of E-N S/U were accredited for specialist training in endocrinology and nutrition, with a mean of 1.4 ± 0.4 residents per year. Regarding undergraduate teaching, 62.1% had at least one endocrinologist serving as a university lecturer, often as an associate professor. A total of 28% had full-time research-dedicated professionals (mean 0.8 ± 2.3). A total of 69% reported at least 1 scientific publication in the past 2 years, with a mean of 22 ± 28 articles during that period.

Table 5.

Teaching, training, and research indicators of E-N S/U. 2023.

  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P valueb 
    N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Teaching/training             
Accredited for MIR residency training in endocrinology (%)  64 (55.2)  1 (7.1)  16 (34.8)  29 (80.6)  18 (90)  < .001 
No. of endocrinology residents per yeara  2.0 (1.6)  2 (—)  1.5 (1.1)  2.3 (1.9)  2.1 (1.7)  .666 
No. of first-year residentsa  1.4 (0.5)  2 (—)  1.1 (0.3)  1.3 (0.5)  1.6 (0.6)  .015 
No. of second-year residentsa  1.3 (0.5)  2 (—)  1.1 (0.3)  1.4 (0.5)  1.5 (0.6)  .089 
No. of third-year residentsa  1.3 (0.5)  2 (—)  1.1 (0.3)  1.3 (0.5)  1.5 (0.5)  .037 
No. of fourth-year residentsa  1.3 (0.5)  3 (—)  1.0 (0)  1.2 (0.4)  1.4 (0.5)  < .001 
Training for residents from other specialties (%)  111 (95.7)  12 (85.7)  43 (93.5)  36 (100)  20 (100)  .092 
Training for endocrinology & nutrition residents from other centers (%)  50 (43.1)  4 (28.6)  10 (21.7)  19 (52.8)  17 (85)  < .001 
Training for dietitians–nutritionists (%)  65 (56)  3 (21.4)  19 (41.3)  25 (69.4)  18 (90)  < .001 
Service/unit professionals participate in undergraduate teaching (%)  72 (62.1)  3 (21.4)  27 (58.7)  29 (80.6)  13 (65)  .002 
No. of full professorsa  0.9 (1.3)  1 (—)  0.5 (0.5)  1.2 (1.8)  0.5 (0.6)  .710 
No. of associate professorsa  1.1 (1.0)  — (—)  0.9 (0.7)  1.3 (1.4)  0.9 (0.4)  .526 
No. of adjunct facultya  3.0 (2.0)  1.5 (0.7)  2.5 (2.5)  3.0 (1.6)  3.9 (1.7)  .166 
Research             
No. of professionals dedicated to research (FTE)a  0.8 (2.3)  0.4 (1.2)  0.2 (0.7)  1.1 (3.5)  1.8 (2.0)  .063 
Integrated in stable organizational structures (RETIC or CIBER) promoted by Instituto Carlos III (%)  23 (19.8)  1 (7.1)  5 (10.9)  9 (25)  8 (40)  .026 
Recognized research group in the hospital-associated Research Foundation (%)  54 (46.6)  2 (14.3)  12 (26.1)  21 (58.3)  19 (95)  < .001 
No. of active publicly funded competitive national/international research projectsa  1.7 (3.0)  0.3 (0.8)  1.0 (1.8)  2.3 (3.5)  3.3 (4.1)  .009 
No. of active privately funded competitive national/international research projectsa  1.9 (3.0)  0.4 (1.2)  1.0 (1.6)  2.4 (3.2)  3.7 (4.1)  .002 
No. of active clinical trialsa  3.6 (6.4)  0.5 (1.7)  1.5 (3.2)  4.4 (5.4)  8.4 (10.6)  < .001 
No. of active non–clinical trials approved by the hospital ethics committeea  3.2 (3.9)  0.5 (0.7)  2.1 (2.9)  3.5 (3.0)  6.4 (6.0)  < .001 
Publications in journals with impact factor (JCR) (last 2 years)a  22 (28)  8 (14)  9 (12)  31 (33)  37 (32)  .001 
Total impact factor (last 2 years)a  165 (273)  61 (95)  68 (141)  180 (338)  216 (396)  .571 
Patent filing or similar (%)  21 (18.1)  1 (7.1)  6 (13)  8 (22.2)  6 (30)  .249 
Participation in national registries (%)  55 (47.4)  3 (21.4)  15 (32.6)  25 (69.4)  12 (60)  .001 

Blank responses were considered “No.” SD, standard deviation; FTE, full-time equivalents; No., number; E-N S/U, endocrinology and nutrition services or units.

a

Indicators expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

Comparison across E-N S/U by hospital group.

Best practices and quality

Regarding best practices and quality, there appears to be substantial room for improvement (Table 6). Nutritional screening was performed in 60% of hospitals, although systematic screening of all hospitalized patients occurred in only 23%; implementation was significantly lower in less complex hospitals.

Table 6.

Best-practice indicators of E-N S/U. 2023.

Best practices  Total  <200 beds  200–499 beds  500–999 beds  ≥1000 beds  P valueb 
    N = 14  N = 46  N = 36  N = 20   
Nutritional assessment of hospitalized patients (malnutrition screening test) (%)  70 (60.3)  6 (42.9)  21 (45.7)  27 (75)  16 (80)  .006 
In all admitted patients (%)  27 (23.3)  4 (28.6)  9 (19.6)  8 (22.2)  6 (30)  .776 
Implemented in some areas (%)  48 (41.4)  3 (21.4)  14 (30.4)  19 (52.8)  12 (60)  .017 
Multidisciplinary care-team meetings (%)  105 (90.5)  9 (64.3)  41 (89.1)  35 (97.2)  20 (100)  .002 
Quality lead (%)  39 (33.6)  2 (14.3)  10 (21.7)  14 (38.9)  13 (65)  .003 
Safety lead (%)  39 (33.6)  1 (7.1)  12 (26.1)  11 (30.6)  15 (75)  < .001 
Clinical sessions (%)  99 (85.3)  8 (57.1)  36 (78.3)  35 (97.2)  20 (100)  < .001 
Accredited clinical sessions (%)  52 (44.8)  5 (35.7)  15 (32.6)  19 (52.8)  13 (65)  .059 
Regular sessions with other hospital departments (%)  98 (84.5)  11 (78.6)  33 (71.7)  34 (94.4)  20 (100)  .006 
No. of clinical sessions/montha  5.9 (5.3)  5.1 (6.1)  3.8 (3.0)  6.8 (6.1)  8.0 (5.8)  .025 
Process-based management (%)  50 (43.1)  4 (28.6)  14 (30.4)  18 (50)  14 (70)  .013 
Process map (%)  49 (42.2)  4 (28.6)  14 (30.4)  17 (47.2)  14 (70)  .016 
Process-based management implemented for the most relevant processes (%)  50 (43.1)  4 (28.6)  14 (30.4)  18 (50)  14 (70)  .013 
No. of processes developeda  4 (2)  3 (2)  3 (2)  4 (2)  3 (2)  .549 
Participation in multidisciplinary committees (%)  102 (87.9)  11 (78.6)  39 (84.8)  32 (88.9)  20 (100)  .244 
Participation in clinical commissions (%)  92 (79.3)  8 (57.1)  33 (71.7)  33 (91.7)  18 (90)  .007 
Nutrition (%)  88 (75.9)  8 (57.1)  28 (60.9)  35 (97.2)  17 (85)  .001 
Obesity (%)  60 (51.7)  1 (7.1)  20 (43.5)  25 (69.4)  14 (70)  < .001 
Dysphagia (%)  47 (40.5)  1 (7.1)  15 (32.6)  20 (55.6)  11 (55)  .005 
Thyroid cancer (%)  74 (63.8)  4 (28.6)  23 (50)  29 (80.6)  18 (90)  < .001 
Other (%)  44 (37.9)  4 (28.6)  14 (30.4)  17 (47.2)  9 (45)  .339 
No. of professionals participating in hospital quality committeesa  1.2 (2.1)  0.7 (1.3)  0.8 (1.3)  1.6 (2.7)  1.6 (2.4)  .279 
Unit certified by a recognized system (ISO, EFQM, etc.)? (%)  25 (21.6)  1 (7.1)  3 (6.5)  10 (27.8)  11 (55)  < .001 
National accreditation as CSUR (%)  13 (11.2)  0 (0)  1 (2.2)  3 (8.3)  9 (45)  < .001 
Congenital metabolic diseases (%)  7 (6)  0 (0)  0 (0)  2 (5.6)  5 (25)  .001 
Complex hypothalamic–pituitary disease (children and adults) (%)  9 (7.8)  0 (0)  1 (2.2)  3 (8.3)  5 (25)  .007 
Mean waiting time for bariatric surgery (days, as of 12/12/23)a  562 (551)  831 (590)  496 (492)  569 (672)  532 (371)  .567 

Blank responses were considered “No.” SD, standard deviation; FTE, full-time equivalents; No., number; E-N S/U, endocrinology and nutrition services or units.

a

Indicators expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

Comparison across E-N S/U by hospital group.

A total of 43% of E-N S/U had implemented process-based management, with a mean of 4 ± 2 processes. A total of 22% had certification from a recognized quality system. Particularly noteworthy was the prolonged waiting time for bariatric surgery (mean, 562 days), with longer delays in hospitals with <200 beds (mean, 831 days).

MBDS

The analysis of the MBDS database and its evolution during the 2007–2022 period is limited to hospital activity, whereas the activity of E-N S/U is predominantly outpatient. Diabetes mellitus (DM) was the most frequent principal discharge diagnosis reported by E-N S/U, accounting for 54% of all discharges from these services during the analyzed period; however, these discharges represented only 22% of all discharges in NHS hospitals (the remaining 78% were issued by other services).

Discharges from E-N S/U progressively decreased during the study period (2007–2022), from 9860 discharges in 2007 to 6821 in 2022. In terms of utilization, this represents a substantial reduction, from 26 discharges per 100,000 inhabitants in 2007 to 17 in 2022 (−53%), suggesting improvements in diagnostic processes and endocrine care that allow a greater proportion of patients to be managed in the outpatient setting. A significant drop in discharges during the period (2007–2022) was observed, particularly in relation to DM (IRR, −3.9%; P < .001). Furthermore, a reduction in median length of stay was noted for discharges from E-N S/U, from 6 days (IQR, 4–8) in 2007 to 4 days (IQR, 3–7) in 2022 (IRR, 0.975; P < .001). The mean hospital stay was 4.7 ± 2.2 days.

A worsening trend was observed between 2016 and 2022 in short- and long-term DM complication indicators developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)13 (Table 7). A notable finding was the association between higher care volume and lower mortality (both crude and risk-adjusted) in admissions for DM (Table 3 of the supplementary data). Although no specific risk-adjustment model is available for in-hospital mortality in admissions with a principal diagnosis of DM, the logistic regression model used demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.796; 95%CI, 0.785–0.808) and calibration (Fig. 1 of the supplementary data).

Table 7.

Evolution of age- and sex-adjusted rates of diabetes mellitus “preventive” indicators. NHS hospitals, 2007–2022.

Year  Short-term complications  95%CI  Long-term complications  95%CI  Admissions for uncontrolled DM  95%CI  Amputation rate  95%CI  Composite rate a  95%CI 
2007 a  16.5  16.1–17.0  48.1  47.3–48.8  3.3  3.1–3.4      67.8  66.9–68.7 
2008 a  15.4  15.0–15.8  45.7  45.0–46.4  3.1  2.9–3.3      64.2  63.4–65.1 
2009 a  14.6  14.2–15.0  43.8  43.1–44.5  3.0  2.8–3.2      61.4  60.5–62.2 
2010 a  13.6  13.3–14.0  42.1  41.4–42.8  2.7  2.6–2.9      58.5  57.7–59.3 
2011 a  13.1  12.7–13.5  38.9  38.3–39.6  2.2  2.0–2.3      54.2  53.5–55.0 
2012 a  13.1  12.7–13.5  35.4  34.8–36.0  1.9  1.7–2.0      50.3  49.6–51.1 
2013 a  12.0  11.6–12.3  34.2  33.6–34.8  1.6  1.5–1.7      47.8  47.1–48.4 
2014 a  11.9  11.6–12.3  32.7  32.2–33.3  1.4  1.3–1.6      46.1  45.4–46.8 
2015a  12.0  11.7–12.4  31.1  30.5–31.6  1.3  1.2–1.4      44.4  43.7–45.0 
2016  9.1  8.8–9.4  17.2  16.8–17.7  11.3  11.0–11.7  8.8  8.8–8.8  37.6  37.0–38.2 
2017  9.5  9.2–9.8  19.0  18.6–19.4  11.7  11.3–12.0  10.2  10.1–10.2  40.2  39.5–40.8 
2018  9.2  8.9–9.5  20.9  20.5–21.4  13.0  12.6–13.3  11.5  11.5–11.5  43.1  42.4–43.7 
2019  8.9  8.6–9.2  21.2  20.8–21.7  13.0  12.7–13.4  11.9  11.9–11.9  43.1  42.5–43.8 
2020  11.3  10.9–11.6  21.3  20.8–21.7  11.1  10.8–11.4  11.8  11.8–11.8  43.6  43.0–44.2 
2021  11.8  11.5–12.2  24.5  24.1–25.0  11.7  11.4–12.1  13.0  12.9–13.0  48.1  47.4–48.8 
2022  12.1  11.8–12.5  26.5  26.0–27.0  11.5  11.1–11.8  13.7  13.7–13.8  50.1  49.4–50.8 
IRR ICD-9  0.959  —  0.945  —  0.883  —  —  —  0.946  — 
p ICD-9  < .001  —  < .001  —  < .001  —  —  —  < .001  — 
IRR ICD-10  1.056  —  1.068  —  0.996  —  1.066  —  1.045  — 
p ICD-10  < .001  —  < .001  —  0.661  —  < .001  —  < .001  — 
IRR  0.971  —  0.940  —  1.150  —  —  —  0.972  — 
P  < .001  —  < .001  —  < .001  —  —  —  <0.001  — 

DM, diabetes mellitus; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval. Rates adjusted for age and sex per 100,000 inhabitants.

a

Amputation rates are not included because reliable data were not available for 2007–2015.

Interterritorial inequalities

Analysis of both survey and MBDS data reveals significant interterritorial inequalities in resource allocation and activity (Table 4 of the supplementary data). Of note, the reliability of region-specific indicators regarding E-N S/U structure and activity depends on the level of RECALSEEN survey coverage in each territory.

Additionally, terterritorial inequalities were observed in endocrine and nutritional care outcomes within NHS hospitals. Table 8 presents differences in hospital indicators (utilization, length of stay, crude and risk-adjusted mortality) for discharges with DM as the principal diagnosis, as well as AHRQ DM indicators (Table 5 of the supplementary data).

Table 8.

Hospital indicators. Discharges for DM, 2022. Autonomous communities.

  Utilization  Utilization adjusted for age and sex  Median length of stay  CMR (%)  RAMR (%) 
Andalusia  45.7  48.3  8.0  6.5  6.8 
Aragon  66.1  61.8  9.0  5.5  5.2 
Principality of Asturias  75.1  65.0  6.0  4.3  4.8 
Balearic Islands  67.2  75.1  7.0  6.1  6.3 
Canary Islands  50.6  54.2  10.0  5.2  6.2 
Cantabria  94.4  86.7  8.0  5.6  5.3 
Castile and León  70.0  59.1  7.0  6.3  5.0 
Castile–La Mancha  43.1  42.8  7.0  5.3  5.0 
Catalonia  39.7  40.3  7.0  5.2  5.2 
Valencian Community  60.3  60.6  6.0  4.4  4.7 
Extremadura  51.8  50.2  6.0  8.5  6.6 
Galicia  65.8  58.6  8.0  7.1  6.1 
Madrid  48.5  51.6  6.0  4.0  4.1 
Region of Murcia  80.7  87.8  6.0  4.9  5.9 
Navarre  67.9  66.4  7.0  4.3  5.3 
Basque Country  72.3  66.1  6.0  4.8  4.8 
La Rioja  82.2  78.0  8.0  6.5  5.7 
Meana  63.6  61.9  7.2  5.6  5.5 
Mediana  66.1  60.6  7.0  5.3  5.3 
SDa  15.3  13.9  1.2  1.2  0.7 
Mina  39.7  40.3  6.0  4.0  4.1 
Maxa  94.4  87.8  10.0  8.5  6.8 

SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; RAMR, risk-adjusted mortality ratio (multilevel); CMR, crude mortality rate.

a

Excluding Ceuta and Melilla.

Discussion

RECALSEEN 2024 provides relevant information on the structure, resources, and activities of E-N S/U, as well as on the evolution of endocrine and nutritional care in NHS hospitals. The most relevant findings include: 1) Significant interterritorial inequalities in resources, activity, and outcomes in endocrine and nutritional care; 2) The ongoing trend—already identified in RECALSEEN 2017—toward outpatient care and telemedicine expansion; 3) The gap between the service portfolio proposed by SEEN and the current reality of E-N S/U; 4) Opportunities for improvement in the implementation of best practices; and 5) A worsening trend in DM “preventive” indicators since 2016.

As in previous editions of RECALSEEN, substantial differences in resources, activity, and outcomes were observed across hospitals and regions. While differences in resources and activity among hospitals are partly explained by variations in institutional complexity, interterritorial differences should be reduced. For example, the endocrinologist rate is more than twice as high in the autonomous community with the highest staffing vs that with the lowest. Furthermore, marked regional differences were observed in the availability of day hospital positions assigned to E-N S/U. Moreover, outcome disparities were evident, both across hospitals and regions. Regarding crude and risk-adjusted hospital mortality in admissions for DM, the autonomous community with the worst results doubled that of the region with the lowest mortality rate (8.5% crude and 6.6% adjusted vs 4.0% and 4.1%, respectively). Some of these regional differences may be related to health care organization, as an association was found between higher hospital volume and lower mortality in DM admissions—an association previously described for other conditions, such as heart failure, in both international literature14 and NHS hospital analyses.15 Another possible explanation may be unequal regional distribution of health determinants unrelated to health care delivery (eg, educational level, income).16 The causes of these inequalities warrant further investigation.

Although resource differences among E-N S/U are partly linked to hospital complexity, a significant gap remains between the service portfolio proposed by SEEN¹² and current availability, even in hospitals with ≥500 beds. One priority area to reduce this gap may be the systematic implementation of nutritional screening, at least among older patients and other high-risk groups.

The shift toward outpatient care and telemedicine is consistent with the broader concept of “hospital of the future,”4,17 reducing hospital admissions through alternatives such as day hospitals, supported by technological advances (insulin pump therapy) and remote patient monitoring (e-consultation; telemonitoring).

There remains substantial room for improvement in the implementation of best practices within E-N S/U, particularly regarding process-based management (only 43.1% have at least 1 implemented clinical care process). The very long waiting times for bariatric surgery deserve special attention; the significantly longer delays in less complex hospitals may indicate geographic inequity, potentially mitigated by developing care networks between “health area” hospitals and “local” hospitals.

Finally, no evidence-based explanation is currently available for the worsening trend in DM “preventive” indicators. Further investigation is needed, considering not only health care factors but also broader social determinants of health.

Limitations

As in previous RECALSEEN editions, caution is warranted regarding the reliability of survey-derived indicators, which depend on factors such as sample representativeness within each autonomous community and hospital typology. Nevertheless, given the large sample size, it appears reasonable to consider the findings representative of the current situation of E-N S/U, although the sample cannot be considered statistically representative in a strict sense. No specific risk adjustment is available for discharges with DM as the principal diagnosis.

Conclusions

RECALSEEN 2024 provides relevant information on the resources and activity of E-N S/U, as well as on endocrine and nutritional care outcomes. Interhospital and interregional inequalities represent a challenge for the specialty. The observed worsening trend in “preventive” indicators for hospital admissions due to DM complications also requires further investigation.

Funding

The RECALSEEN 2024 project was funded by Fresenius Kabi and the SEEN Foundation (FSEEN).

Declaration of competing interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Spanish Ministry of Health for the partial provision of the MBDS database.

Appendix A
Supplementary data

The following is Supplementary data to this article:

Icono mmc1.doc

References
[1]
F. Botella-Romero, F.J. Elola Somoza, E. Navarro-González, C. Fernández-Pérez, J.L. Bernal-Sobrino, I.B. Lesmes.
RECALSEEN. La atención al paciente en las unidades de Endocrinología y Nutrición del Sistema Nacional de Salud.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 66 (2019), pp. 425-433
[2]
E. Cancer Minchot, F.J. Elola Somoza, C. Fernández Pérez, J.L. Bernal Sobrino, I. Bretón Lesmes, F. Botella Romero.
RECALSEEN. Subgrupo: la atención al paciente en las unidades de nutrición clínica del Sistema Nacional de Salud.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 68 (2021), pp. 354-362
[3]
Puig-Domingo, I. Bretón, I. Bernabeu, J.A. Gimeno, S. Azriel, F. Botella, et al.
Reflexión estratégica de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición sobre el futuro de la especialidad en el periodo 2018-2022.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 66 (2019), pp. 654-662
[4]
J. Escalada, E. Anda, M. Ballesteros, I. Bernabeu, I. Bretón, J.J. Díez, et al.
Reflexión Estratégica de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición 2023-2027. SEEN.
[5]
J. Santamaria, I. Bretón, A. Fernández, F. Hanzu, R. Luque, P. Pinés, et al.
RECALSEEN 2021. RECALSEEN 2021. La atención al paciente en las unidades de Endocrinología y Nutrición del Sistema Nacional de Salud.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 70 (2023), pp. 459-467
[6]
E. Cancer Minchot, F.J. Elola Somoza, C. Fernández Pérez, J.L. Bernal Sobrino, I. Bretón Lesmes, F. Botella Romero.
RECALSEEN. Subgrupo: la atención al paciente en las unidades de nutrición clínica del Sistema Nacional de Salud.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 68 (2021), pp. 354-362
[7]
R. Reyes García, J.L. Bernal Sobrino, C. Fernández Pérez, C. Morillas Ariño, S. Azriel Mira, F.J. Elola Somoza, et al.
Trends on Diabetes Mellitus’s healthcare management in Spain 2007-2015.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract., 156 (2019),
[8]
2024. RECALSEEN. Recursos y Calidad en Endocrinología y Nutrición. Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición (SEEN), julio 2025. Available from: SEEN | Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición.
[9]
H. Goldstein, D.J. Spiegelhalter.
League tables and their limitations: statistical aspects of institutional performance.
J Royal Stat Soc., 159 (1996), pp. 385-443
[10]
V. Sundararajan, T. Henderson, C. Perry, A. Muggivan, H. Quan, W.A. Ghali, et al.
New ICD-10 version of the Charlson Comorbidity Index predicted in-hospital mortality.
J Clin Epidemiol., 57 (2004), pp. 1288-1294
[11]
P. Barber, B. González López-Valcalcel.
Actualización: Informe de necesidad de médicos especialistas en España 2023-2035.
[12]
J. Santamaría Sandi, E. Navarro González, A. Herrero Ruiz, O. Bandrés Nivela, M. Ballesteros Pomar, F.J. Escalada San Martín, et al.
Cartera de servicios en Endocrinología y Nutrición. Actualización 2020.
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr., 68 (2021), pp. 577-588
[13]
Technical Specifications For Prevention Quality Indicators in Inpatient Settings. Available from: AHRQ QI: PQI Technical Specifications Updates [accessed 30 Aug 2025]. Available from: https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/measures/PQI_TechSpec.
[14]
J.S. Ross, S.T. Normand, Y. Wang, D.T. Ko, J. Chen, E.E. Drye, et al.
Hospital volume and 30-day mortality for three common medical conditions.
N Eng J Med., 362 (2010), pp. 1110-1118
[15]
P. Martínez Santos, R. Bover Freire, A. Esteban Fernández, J.L. Bernal Sobrino, C. Fernández Pérez, et al.
Mortalidad hospitalaria y reingresos por insuficiencia cardiaca en España. Un estudio de los episodios índice y los reingresos por causas cardiacas a los 30 días y al año.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 72 (2019), pp. 998-1004
[16]
C. Ortiz-Cortés, L. Fernández-Friera, J.M. Gámez Martínez, A. Cequier Fillat, C. Bonanad Lozano, A Sambola, et al.
Regional inequalities in heart failure hospitalisation and in-hospital mortality in Spain (2016–2022): a nationwide, observational study.
Lancet Reg Health Europe., 61 (2026),
[17]
R. Gómez Huelgas, J. Díez Manglano, J. Carretero Gómez, R. Barba, X. Corbella, J. García Alegría, et al.
El hospital del futuro en 10 puntos.
Rev Clin Esp., 220 (2020), pp. 444-449
Copyright © 2025. SEEN and SED
Article options
Tools
Supplemental materials