Subcutaneous insulin order sets and protocols: effective design and implementation strategies

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

InsulinAPP application protocol for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes on a hospitalist-managed ward: a retrospective study

Introduction

We assessed metrics related to inpatient glycemic control using InsulinAPP, an application available for free in Brazil, on the hospitalist-managed ward of our hospital.

Subjects and methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted from November 2018 to October 2019. InsulinAPP recommends NPH and regular insulins three times a day, in bolus-correction or basal-bolus schemes. Parameters that included BG within range of 70-180 mg/dL, insulin treatment regimen and frequency of hypoglycemia were evaluated.

Results

A total of 147 T2D individuals (23% medicine and 77% surgery) were included (mean age 62.3 ± 12.7 years, HbA1c: 8.3 ± 3.0%). The initial insulin regimen was 50% bolus-correction, 47% basal-bolus and 3% with sliding scale insulin. During hospitalization, 71% patients required a bolus-basal regimen. In the first 10 days of the protocol, 71% BG measurements were between 70-180 mg/dL and 26% patients experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dL, and 5% with BG < 54 mg/dL.

Conclusion

The results of this retrospective study indicate the InsulinAPP application using human insulin formulations was effective and safe for the management of hyperglycemia on a hospitalist-managed ward, with more than 70% BG measurements within the therapeutic range and a low rate of hypoglycemia.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

15. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Inpatient and Outpatient Technologies to Assist in the Management of Insulin Dosing

Several new technologies use computer algorithms to analyze a person's blood glucose response to insulin treatment, calculate the person's next recommended insulin dose, advise the person regarding when to check blood glucose next, and provide alerts regarding glucose control for the individual patient or across a hospital system. This article reviews U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products designed to help manage insulin dosing for inpatients, as well as those available to provide people with insulin-requiring diabetes support in making adjustments to their basal and/or mealtime insulin doses. Many of these products have a provider interface that allows for remote monitoring of patients' glucose readings and insulin doses. By alleviating some of the burdens of insulin initiation and dose adjustment, these products may facilitate improved glycemic management and patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Metformin Use in Hospitalized, Non-Critically Ill Patients

Background: Contraindications and precautions to metformin have limited inpatient use, and limited evidence exists evaluating metformin in hospitalized patients. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient metformin use. Methods: This study was an observational, retrospective, cohort study at an academic medical center between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018. Hospitalized adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving at least 1 metformin dose were included. The primary endpoint was to identify hospitalized patients using metformin with at least 1 contraindication or precautionary warning against use. Secondary endpoints included assessing metformin efficacy with glycemic control, characterizing adverse outcomes of inpatient metformin, and comparing the efficacy of metformin-containing regimens. Results: Two hundred patients were included. There were 126 incidences of potentially unsafe use identified in 111 patients (55.5%). The most common reasons were age ≥65 years (47%), heart failure diagnosis (7.5%), and metformin within 48 hours of contrast (6%). Metformin was contraindicated in 2 patients (1%) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2. The overall median daily blood glucose was 146 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 122-181). Patients were divided into 3 groups: metformin monotherapy, metformin plus oral antihyperglycemic therapy, and metformin plus insulin. The median daily blood glucoses were 129 mg/dL (IQR = 110-152), 154 mg/dL (IQR = 133-178), and 174 mg/dL (IQR = 142-203; P < .001), respectively. Two patients (1%) developed acute kidney injury, and no patients developed lactic acidosis. Conclusions: Metformin was associated with goal glycemic levels in hospitalized patients with no adverse outcomes. These results suggest the potential for metformin use in hospitalized, non-critically ill patients.

15. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Noninsulin medication therapy for hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

Published evidence regarding the role of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies in glycemic management of hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus is reviewed.

SUMMARY

The American Diabetes Association recommends against the routine use of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies during hospitalization and supports insulin use instead. There are significant risks associated with insulin therapy, including hypoglycemia, and use of alternative therapies may be considered in hospitalized patients. A MEDLINE literature search was conducted to find articles on studies evaluating the use of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies in the inpatient setting; all full-text English-language publications presenting observational and randomized clinical trial data on the topic of interest were considered for inclusion in the review, with 9 publications selected for review. The majority of the reviewed research focused on incretin-based therapies, and favorable safety and efficacy outcomes were reported with the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The available evidence indicates that the use of other noninsulin medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulfonylureas, to achieve and maintain glycemic control in the inpatient setting may be limited by adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Optimal glycemic control in hospitalized patients with diabetes is necessary to avoid adverse effects. Insulin therapy is currently the primary medication recommended for this patient population. DPP-4 inhibitors have been demonstrated to be safe and effective for use in the inpatient setting in patients with well-controlled diabetes. Further research is needed to help define the role of noninsulin medications in the inpatient setting.

Evaluation of Basal Insulin Dose Reductions in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes While Unable to Eat

Background: The American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend a basal plus correction or basal insulin regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving nothing by mouth (NPO; nil per os) in the non-intensive care unit setting. In the perioperative setting, 60% to 80% of long-acting insulin or half-dose morning insulin NPH is recommended. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the impact of basal insulin dose reduction for hospitalized patients with insulin-dependent T2DM while NPO. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study evaluated patients admitted to the non-intensive care unit setting. Administration of >50% of home basal insulin was compared with administration of ≤50% of home basal insulin. The primary outcome was the difference in hypoglycemic events (blood glucose [BG] < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included comparing severe hypoglycemic events (BG < 40 mg/dL), hyperglycemic events (BG > 180 mg/dL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Two hundred fifty-eight patient encounters were included, of which 85 and 173 patients received ≤50% and >50% of their home basal insulin dose, respectively. There were no significant differences in hypoglycemia (21.2% vs 21.4%; P = .97), severe hypoglycemia (1.2% vs 2.9%; P = .67), and hospital LOS (3 [IQR 2.13-6.74] days vs 4.66 [IQR 2.94-8.17] days; P = .74). Hyperglycemia occurred at a higher rate in patients receiving ≤50% of their home basal insulin dose (97.6% vs 89%; P = .02). Conclusions: No differences were observed in hypoglycemic events between those patients receiving ≤50% and >50% of their home basal insulin.

15. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Insulin Detection Using a Corona Phase Molecular Recognition Site on Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

Corona phase molecular recognition (CoPhMoRe) is a technique whereby an external, adsorbed phase around a colloidal nanoparticle is selected such that its molecular conformation or interaction recognizes a specific target analyte. In this work, we employ a high-throughput screening of a library of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)-conjugated lipids adsorbed onto near-infrared fluorescent single-walled carbon nanotubes to discover a corona phase selective for insulin. We find that a C₁₆-PEG(2000 Da)-ceramide causes a 62% fluorescent intensity decrease of the (10,2) chirality nanotube in the presence of 20 μg/mL insulin. The insulin protein has no prior affinity toward the C₁₆-PEG(2000 Da)-ceramide molecules in free solution, verified by isothermal titration calorimetry, and the interaction occurs only upon their adsorption onto the single-walled carbon nanotube scaffolds. Testing a panel of proteins originating from human blood as well as short 7 amino acid fragments of the insulin peptide rules out nonselective recognition mechanisms such as molecular weight, isoelectric point, and hydrophobicity-based detection. Interestingly, longer fragments of isolated α- and β-peptide chains of insulin are detected by the construct, albeit with lower affinity compared to that of the intact insulin protein, suggesting that the construct recognizes insulin in its native form and conformation. Finally, the insulin recognition and the quantification of its solution concentration were demonstrated both in buffer and in blood serum, showing that the CoPhMoRe construct works in this complex environment despite the presence of potential nonspecific adsorption. Our results further motivate the search for nonbiological synthetic recognition sites and open up a new path for continuous insulin monitoring in vivo with the hope of improving glycemic control in closed-loop artificial pancreas systems.

14. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Decreased rates of hypoglycemia following implementation of a comprehensive computerized insulin order set and titration algorithm in the inpatient setting

OBJECTIVES

More than one-third of hospitalized patients have hyperglycemia. Despite evidence that improving glycemic control leads to better outcomes, achieving recognized targets remains a challenge. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a computerized insulin order set and titration algorithm on rates of hypoglycemia and overall inpatient glycemic control.

METHODS

A prospective observational study evaluating the impact of a glycemic order set and titration algorithm in an academic medical center in non-critical care medical and surgical inpatients. The initial intervention was hospital-wide implementation of a comprehensive insulin order set. The secondary intervention was initiation of an insulin titration algorithm in two pilot medicine inpatient units. Point of care testing blood glucose reports were analyzed. These reports included rates of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (BG >200 mg/dL in phase 1, BG > 180 mg/dL in phase 2).

RESULTS

In the first phase of the study, implementation of the insulin order set was associated with decreased rates of hypoglycemia (1.92% vs 1.61%; p < 0.001) and increased rates of hyperglycemia (24.02% vs 27.27%; p < 0.001) from 2010 to 2011. In the second phase, addition of a titration algorithm was associated with decreased rates of hypoglycemia (2.57% vs 1.82%; p = 0.039) and increased rates of hyperglycemia (31.76% vs 41.33%; p < 0.001) from 2012 to 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive computerized insulin order set and titration algorithm significantly decreased rates of hypoglycemia. This significant reduction in hypoglycemia was associated with increased rates of hyperglycemia. Hardwiring the algorithm into the electronic medical record may foster adoption.

Reduction of Insulin Related Preventable Severe Hypoglycemic Events in Hospitalized Children

OBJECTIVE

Insulin is a commonly used, high-risk medication in the inpatient setting. Incorrect insulin administration can lead to preventable hypoglycemic events, which are a significant morbidity in inpatient diabetes care. The goal of this intervention was to decrease preventable insulin-related hypoglycemic events in an inpatient setting in a tertiary care pediatric hospital.

METHODS

Methods included the institution of several interventions such as nursing and physician education, electronic medical record order sets, electronic communication note templates, and the development of new care guidelines.

RESULTS

After the institution of multiple interventions, the rate of preventable hypoglycemic events decreased from 1.4 preventable events per 100 insulin days to 0.4 preventable events per 100 insulin days.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the use of a multi-interventional approach with oversight of a multidisciplinary insulin safety committee, a sustained decreased rate of severe preventable hypoglycemic events in hospitalized pediatric patients receiving insulin was achieved.

Outcomes of Less Intensive Glycemic Target for a Subcutaneous Insulin Protocol in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

This study looked at the effect of replacing an intensive subcutaneous insulin correction protocol (old subcutaneous insulin correction protocol [OP]) with a less intensive protocol (new subcutaneous insulin correction protocol [NP]) in a tertiary hospital with the hypothesis that using the NP will result in less hypoglycemia and improved hospital outcomes.

METHODS

The charts for 200 hospitalized patients managed with the OP (glycemic target 90-116 mg/dL for intensive care and 90-130 mg/dL for nonintensive care patients) and 200 with the NP (glycemic target 150-200 mg/dL) were reviewed. Data were collected and analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. The primary outcome was the difference in hypoglycemia rates between the 2 protocols. Hypothesis test P values of <0.05 were deemed significant.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, level of hospital care or use of scheduled insulin for the 2 groups (P > 0.05 for all). Average blood glucose values were 160.45 and 169.98 mg/dL for the OP and NP, respectively (P = 0.063). There were 14 readings ≤ 40 mg/dL in the OP compared with 6 in the NP (P = 0.046). With the OP, 27 patients required dextrose treatment compared to 11 with the NP (P = 0.0097). The average length of hospitalization was longer for the NP compared with the OP (13.16 versus 6.56 days, P = 0.00085).

CONCLUSIONS

A less intensive subcutaneous insulin correction protocol in hospitalized patients resulted in similar glucose values with less severe hypoglycemia. However, it was associated with longer length of hospitalization.

[Predictors of mean blood glucose control and its variability in diabetic hospitalized patients]

INTRODUCTION

This study was intended to assess the effectiveness and predictors factors of inpatient blood glucose control in diabetic patients admitted to medical departments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, analytical cohort study was conducted on patients discharged from internal medicine with a diagnosis related to diabetes. Variables collected included demographic characteristics, clinical data and laboratory parameters related to blood glucose control (HbA1c, basal plasma glucose, point-of-care capillary glucose). The cumulative probability of receiving scheduled insulin regimens was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariate regression models were used to select predictors of mean inpatient glucose (MHG) and glucose variability (standard deviation [GV]).

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 228 patients (mean age 78.4 (SD 10.1) years, 51% women). Of these, 96 patients (42.1%) were treated with sliding-scale regular insulin only. Median time to start of scheduled insulin therapy was 4 (95% CI, 2-6) days. Blood glucose control measures were: MIG 181.4 (SD 41.7) mg/dL, GV 56.3 (SD 22.6). The best model to predict MIG (R(2): .376; P<.0001) included HbA1c (b=4.96; P=.011), baseline plasma glucose (b=.056; P=.084), mean capillary blood glucose in the first 24hours (b=.154; P<.0001), home treatment (versus oral agents) with basal insulin only (b=13.1; P=.016) or more complex (pre-mixed insulin or basal-bolus) regimens (b=19.1; P=.004), corticoid therapy (b=14.9; P=.002), and fasting on admission (b=10.4; P=.098).

CONCLUSION

Predictors of inpatient blood glucose control which should be considered in the design of DM management protocols include home treatment, HbA1c, basal plasma glucose, mean blood glucose in the first 24hours, fasting, and corticoid therapy.

Non-ICU hospital care of diabetes mellitus in the elderly population

The concept of lower is better when considering the goal for glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus has recently been challenged due to recent studies, such as ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT, which have observed increased morbidity and mortality from intensive control, especially in older adults, and in those with long duration of diabetes disease and chronic complications. Although evidence in younger patients suggest that blood glucose levels should not be above 180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l), there are many unanswered questions and controversies regarding the benefits and risks, methods to achieve and maintain these levels while avoiding hypoglycemia (<70 mg% (3.9 mmol/l)) in the older population. Since the population is aging with a greater life expectancy, it is crucial that these questions be answered. Although several studies of inpatient non-ICU diabetes management have been published, few include older patients. This review will examine available recommendations and explore those controversies regarding non-ICU hospital management in this vulnerable patient population. Additional conditions that impact upon achieving glycemic control will also be discussed. Finally, the older individual has many special needs which may be more important to consider than in young or middle-aged individuals, when transitioning care from in-hospital to home in a patient-centered approach, as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and European Society for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The Mealtime Challenge: Nutrition and Glycemic Control in the Hospital

In Brief Multiple staff members and departments have a responsibility for various aspects of nutrition therapy for glycemic management in the hospital setting. Implementation is initiated by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants and planned and operationalized by registered dietitians. Meals are delivered by food service staff, and nurses monitor and integrate glycemic control components into patients' medical treatment plan. Although nutrition therapy is recognized as an important aspect of care in the hospital setting, it can also be challenging to appropriately coordinate meals with blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration. This article addresses current mealtime practices and recommendations to improve these processes in acute care.

A detailed description of the implementation of inpatient insulin orders with a commercial electronic health record system

In the setting of Meaningful Use laws and professional society guidelines, hospitals are rapidly implementing electronic glycemic management order sets. There are a number of best practices established in the literature for glycemic management protocols and programs. We believe that this is the first published account of the detailed steps to be taken to design, implement, and optimize glycemic management protocols in a commercial computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system. Prior to CPOE implementation, our hospital already had a mature glycemic management program. To transition to CPOE, we underwent the following 4 steps: (1) preparation and requirements gathering, (2) design and build, (3) implementation and dissemination, and (4) optimization. These steps required more than 2 years of coordinated work between physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and programmers. With the move to CPOE, our complex glycemic management order sets were successfully implemented without any significant interruptions in care. With feedback from users, we have continued to refine the order sets, and this remains an ongoing process. Successful implementation of glycemic management protocols in CPOE is dependent on broad stakeholder input and buy-in. When using a commercial CPOE system, there may be limitations of the system, necessitating workarounds. There should be an upfront plan to apply resources for continuous process improvement and optimization after implementation.

Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics

Insulin is a top source of adverse drug events in the hospital, and glycemic control is a focus of improvement efforts across the country. Yet, the majority of hospitals have no data to gauge their performance on glycemic control, hypoglycemia rates, or hypoglycemic management. Current tools to outsource glucometrics reports are limited in availability or function. Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) faculty designed and implemented a web-based data and reporting center that calculates glucometrics on blood glucose data files securely uploaded by users. Unit labels, care type (critical care, non-critical care), and unit type (eg, medical, surgical, mixed, pediatrics) are defined on upload allowing for robust, flexible reporting. Reports for any date range, care type, unit type, or any combination of units are available on demand for review or downloading into a variety of file formats. Four reports with supporting graphics depict glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia management by patient day or patient stay. Benchmarking and performance ranking reports are generated periodically for all hospitals in the database. In all, 76 hospitals have uploaded at least 12 months of data for non-critical care areas and 67 sites have uploaded critical care data. Critical care benchmarking reveals wide variability in performance. Some hospitals achieve top quartile performance in both glycemic control and hypoglycemia parameters. This new web-based glucometrics data and reporting tool allows hospitals to track their performance with a flexible reporting system, and provides them with external benchmarking. Tools like this help to establish standardized glucometrics and performance standards.

Inpatient hypoglycemia: a challenge that must be addressed

Hypoglycemia in the inpatient setting is a common occurrence with potentially harmful outcomes. Large trials in both the inpatient and outpatient settings have found a correlation between hypoglycemia and morbidity and mortality. The incidence of hypoglycemia is difficult to assess, due to a lack of standardized definitions and different methods of data collection between hospital systems. Risk factors that predispose to hypoglycemia involve the changing clinical statuses of patients, nutrition issues, and hospital processes. Mechanisms contributing to morbidity due to hypoglycemia may include an increase in sympathoadrenal responses, as well as indirect changes affecting cytokine production, coagulation, fibrinolysis, and endothelial function. Prevention of hypoglycemia requires implementation of several strategies that include patient safety, quality control, multidisciplinary communication, and transitions of care. In this article, we discuss all of these issues and provide suggestions to help predict and prevent hypoglycemic episodes during an inpatient stay. We address the issues that occur upon admission, during the hospital stay, and around the time of discharge. We believe that decreasing the incidence of inpatient hypoglycemia will both decrease costs and improve patient outcomes.

Management of the hospitalized patient with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have minimal to absent pancreatic β-cell function and rely on the exogenous delivery of insulin to obtain adequate and life-sustaining glucose homeostasis. Maintaining glycemic control is challenging in hospitalized patients with T1DM, as insulin requirements are influenced by the presence of acute medical or surgical conditions, as well as altered nutritional intake. The risks of hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability are increased in hospitalized patients with T1DM. Diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia are the 2 most common emergency conditions that account for the majority of hospital admissions in patients with T1DM. The association between hyperglycemia and increased risk of complications and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is well established; however, the impact of glycemic control on clinical outcomes has not been determined in patients with T1DM who present without ketoacidosis. To decrease complications associated with insulin therapy, health care professionals must be well versed in the use of insulin because it is a common source of medication error. For non-critically ill, hospitalized patients, subcutaneous insulin given to cover basal and prandial needs instead of sliding scale is the preferred method of insulin dosing. Protocols are available for initiating and titrating insulin doses, as well as for transitioning from an insulin infusion to a subcutaneous regimen. In our review, we identify and discuss special considerations related to inpatient glycemic control of non-ketotic patients with T1DM. Additionally, point differences and similarities associated with the management of patients with T2DM are discussed.

Effect of online diabetes training for hospitalists on inpatient glycaemia

AIM

An online diabetes course for medical residents led to lower patient blood glucose, but also increased hypoglycaemia despite improved trainee confidence and knowledge. Based on these findings, we determined whether an optimized educational intervention delivered to hospitalists (corresponding to an Acute Physician or Specialist in Acute Hospital Medicine in the UK) improved inpatient glycaemia without concomitant hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

All 22 hospitalists at an academic medical centre were asked to participate in an online curriculum on the management of inpatient dysglycaemia in autumn 2009 and a refresher course in spring 2010.

RESULTS

All hospitalists completed the initial intervention. Median event blood glucose decreased from 9.3 mmol/l (168 mg/dl) pre-intervention to 7.8 mmol/l (141 mg/dl) post-intervention and 8.5 mmol/l (153 mg/dl) post-refresher (P < 0.001 for both). Hospitalizations categorized as hyperglycaemia decreased from 83.3 to 55.6% (P = 0.014), with a trend towards euglycaemia (10-28.9%, P = 0.08) and no change in hypoglycaemia. Hyperglycaemic patient-days decreased from 72.0 to 57.3% (P = 0.004), with greater target glycaemia (27.3-39.4%, P = 0.016) and no change in hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

An optimized online educational intervention delivered to hospitalists yielded significant improvements in inpatient glycaemia without increased hypoglycaemia.

Pathophysiology and management strategies for hyperglycemia for patients with acute illness during and following a hospital stay

Hyperglycemia in the inpatient setting is associated with poor clinical outcomes and is often suboptimally managed. This review addresses the pathophysiology of hyperglycemia, current recommendations for management of inpatient hyperglycemia in the general medical and surgical care setting, the transition between different diabetes treatments, and the transition from inpatient to outpatient therapy. The preferred drug for management of inpatient hyperglycemia is insulin. Successful use of intravenous and subcutaneous insulin in the hospital is based on the implementation of standardized protocols. Current guidelines recommend basal-bolus subcutaneous insulin in non-critically ill patients. The methods of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous, sliding-scale to basal-bolus, and biphasic to basal-bolus are discussed. Transition from an inpatient to an outpatient insulin regimen, especially in patients new to insulin therapy, requires special attention to ensure that patients have the knowledge to administer insulin safely and effectively. The optimal regimen at discharge must be individualized. Patients with acute infections may benefit from insulin therapy until the infection is resolved. Strategies to optimize diabetes therapy after discharge are discussed. Prompt outpatient follow-up is crucial to ensure optimal glycemic control. Despite the challenges, improved glycemic control in individuals with acute illness has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality in individuals with this widespread metabolic illness.

The future of inpatient diabetes management: glucose as the sixth vital sign

Diabetes is an ever increasing health problem in our society. Due to associated small and large vessel conditions, patients with diabetes are two- to four-fold more likely to require hospitalization than nondiabetic individuals. Furthermore, hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients results in increased susceptibility to wound infections, worse outcomes postcardiac and cerebrovascular events, longer hospital length of stay and increased inpatient mortality. Several studies suggest that tight control of glucose levels yields improvement in these factors. Conversely, other studies have suggested increased mortality after tight glucose management, perhaps as a result of an increased incidence of hypoglycemic events. The most reasonable approach to control of hyperglycemia is to normalize glucose levels as much as possible without triggering hypoglycemia. In the hospital, insulin therapy of hyperglycemia is preferred due to the ability to flexibly manage glucose levels without side effects associated with many alternative antidiabetic agents. Due to the increasing burden of inpatient diabetes, and the detrimental effects of both hyper and hypoglycemia, the authors predict that blood-glucose levels will become the sixth vital sign to be frequently monitored in hospitalized patients and controlled in a narrow range. The future is in the use of insulin pumps controlled by continuous glucose monitors. This technology is complex and has not yet become standard. The development of future inpatient diabetes care will depend on adaptation of hospital systems to advance the new technology.

Improving glycemic control with the adjunct use of a data management software program

BACKGROUND

Published studies have supported the implementation of tight glucose control (TGC) programs to improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. However, measuring a program's efficiency is challenging, because of a lack of systems that capture data, allow access to data, and support analysis and interpretation in a near prospective time frame. We hypothesized that providing clinicians access to real-time blood glucose (BG) results reports could improve the efficacy of our TGC program.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of BG data during a 12-month period in a surgical trauma intensive care unit at a level I trauma center. A unit-specific insulin algorithm was used throughout the study. We compared BG values before and after the implementation of a data management software program that allowed clinicians access to real-time BG results reports. Reports were run daily and weekly to monitor the unit's TGC program.

RESULTS

A total of 70 616 BG values from 1044 patients were analyzed. An overall decrease was observed in the BG level mean, from 121 mg/dL to 112 mg/dL (P < .001), as well as a decrease in the aggregated mean across patients, from 132 mg/dL to 119 mg/dL (P < .001), after implementation of the software. The percentage of values within the target range of 80 to 110 mg/dL increased from 38.9% to 50.4% (P < .001). The percentage of BG values less than 70 increased from 2.7% to 3.4% (P < .001). However, the percentage of severe hypoglyce-mic episodes (≤ 40 mg/dL) remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to real-time aggregated BG data reports through the use of a data management software program improved the efficacy of our TGC program.

2011 John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Awards. Mentored implementation: building leaders and achieving results through a collaborative improvement model. Innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level

BACKGROUND

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) created "Mentored Implementation" (MI) programs with the dual aims of educating and mentoring hospitalists and their quality improvement (QI) teams and accelerating improvement in the inpatient setting in three signature programs: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention, Glycemic Control, and Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions).

METHODS

More than 300 hospital improvement teams were enrolled in SHM MI programs in a series of cohorts. Hospitalist mentors worked with individual hospitals/health systems to guide local teams through the life cycle of a QI project. Implementation Guides and comprehensive Web-based "Resource Rooms," as well as the mentor's own experience, provided best-practice definitions, practical implementation tips, measurement strategies, and other tools. E-mail interactions and mentoring were augmented by regularly scheduled teleconferences; group webinars; and, in some instances, a site visit. Performance was tracked in a centralized data tracking center.

RESULTS

Preliminary data on all three MI programs show significant improvement in patient outcomes, as well as enhancements of communication and leadership skills of the hospitalists and their QI teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Although objective data on outcomes and process measures for the MI program's efficacy remain preliminary at this time, the maturing data tracking system, multiple awards, and early results indicate that the MI programs are successful in providing QI training and accelerating improvement efforts.

Obstacles to optimal management of inpatient hyperglycemia in noncritically ill patients

Compelling evidence continues to evolve linking hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with adverse clinical outcomes. In 2012, The Endocrine Society's clinical practice guidelines for management of hyperglycemia in non-critical care settings were published, and explicit blood glucose targets for noncritically ill patients were recommended. These matched those set by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2012. Although there are more specific targets for achieving optimal glycemic control in critically ill and noncritically ill inpatients, implementing standardized processes to achieve these goals continues to remain a challenge. This article summarizes these obstacles and emphasizes the quality of care and safety issues (eg, hypoglycemia and insulin errors) that are associated with the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients. The use of intravenous insulin via computerized or manual standardized protocols in critically ill patients has been shown to be effective in achieving glucose control; we focus on the barriers to the appropriate use of subcutaneous insulin in hospitalized patients with noncritical illness. We also elaborate on how to overcome most of these obstacles and the clinical inertia to treat hyperglycemia through focused education and surveillance, and then "re-education," using a multidisciplinary, collaborative approach. Transition from intravenous insulin to subcutaneous insulin, and transition from an inpatient to an outpatient glycemic regimen at the time of discharge, are identified as aspects of management that require extra attention. We also emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary task force responsible for monitoring and enhancing glycemic control practices in the hospital on an ongoing basis.

Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Standard order sets often increase the use of desirable interventions for patients likely to benefit from them. Whether such order sets also increase misuse of these interventions in patients potentially harmed by them is unknown. We measured the association between a paper-based standard admission order set with a venous thromboembolism pharmacoprophylaxis (VTEP) module and use of VTEP for patients likely to benefit from it as well as patients with unclear benefit or potential harm from it.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative and pharmacy charge data of patients admitted between 1 July 2005 and 31 December 2008 to two medical and three surgical services that implemented a standard admission order set in August 2006. The primary outcome was use of VTEP in patients with likely benefit, unclear benefit, and potential harm from VTEP prior to and following order set implementation.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 8,429 patients (32%) were admitted prior to and 17,635 (68%) following order set implementation. There was a small unadjusted rise in overall VTEP use after implementation (51% to 58%, p < 0.001). In multivariable models with interrupted time series analysis, patients with potential harm from VTEP had the largest increase in VTEP use at the time of implementation [adjusted odds ratio = 1.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-2.22]. The increased likelihood of receiving VTEP in this subgroup gradually returned to baseline (adjusted odds ratio per month = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a standard admission order set transiently increased VTEP in patients with potential harm from it. Order set and guideline success should be judged based on the degree to which they successfully target patients likely to benefit from the intervention without inadvertently targeting patients potentially harmed.

Basal-bolus insulin protocols enter the computer age

Diabetes affects approximately one quarter of all hospitalized patients. Poor inpatient glycemic control has been associated with increased risk for multiple adverse events including surgical site infections, prolonged hospital length of stay, and mortality. Inpatient glycemic control protocols based on physiologic basal-bolus insulin regimens have been shown to improve glycemia and clinical outcomes and are recommended by the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the Society of Hospital Medicine for inpatient glycemic management of noncritically ill patients. The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act will catalyze widespread computerized medication order entry implementation over the next few years. Here, we focus on the noncritical care setting and review the background on inpatient glycemic management as it pertains to computerized order entry, the translation and efficacy of computerizing glycemic control protocols, and the barriers to computerizing glycemic protocols.

Glycemic control in non-diabetic critically ill patients

Hyperglycemia is a common and costly health care problem in hospitalized patients. In hospital hyperglycemia is defined as any glucose value >7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl). Hyperglycemia is present in 40% of critically ill patients and in up to 80% of patients after cardiac surgery, with ∼ 80% of ICU patients with hyperglycemia having no history of diabetes prior to admission. The risk of hospital complications relates to the severity of hyperglycemia, with a higher risk observed in patients without a history of diabetes compared to those with known diabetes. Improvement in glycemic control reduces hospital complications and mortality; however, the ideal glycemic target has not been determined. A target glucose level between 7.8 and 10.0 mmol/l (140 and 180 mg/dl) is recommended for the majority of ICU patients. This review aims to present updated recommendations for the inpatient management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients with and without a history of diabetes.

Management of hyperglycemia in the non-intensive care patient: featuring subcutaneous insulin protocols

OBJECTIVE

To provide insulin protocols and adjustment guidance for management of hyperglycemia in common inpatient clinical scenarios.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed search of pertinent existing literature from 1980 to 2010.

RESULTS

Hyperglycemia is frequently encountered in general medical and surgical wards and has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes, prolonged hospital length of stay, and increased institutional care needs after discharge. No randomized controlled trial has been conducted to define optimal glycemic goals or to investigate the effects of intensive glycemic control in the non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Nonetheless, it is advocated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Diabetes Association, in their 2009 Consensus Statement on Inpatient Glycemic Control, that optimization of glycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia be judiciously offered. This approach is clinically sound, in light of the known deleterious consequences of hyperglycemia in critically and noncritically ill patients and the benefits observed with improved glycemic control in intensive care settings. The approach to hyperglycemia in non-ICU inpatients should follow the principles of provision of basal-nutritional-supplemental insulin. Herein we provide insulin protocols and adjustment guidance for management of hyperglycemia in common clinical scenarios. Recommendations reflect the opinion of national experts in the field and our departmental consensus at Penn State Institute for Diabetes and Obesity.

CONCLUSION

Glycemic control in the non-ICU setting is a relevant clinical situation that should be addressed and managed effectively and prudently. We present a practical guide for management of hyperglycemia individualized to various clinical scenarios encountered in the general hospital wards.

Insulin therapy during hospitalization

Hyperglycemia occurring during hospitalization is a common phenomenon among patients with or without a known history of diabetes mellitus. For several years, hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients had been considered as an accompanying characteristic of the acute disease that resulted in admission. That point of view changed over time mainly because of emerging indications from clinical studies showing that hyperglycemia during hospitalization could aggravate prognosis and increase mortality. Further studies engaged on how hyperglycemia should be treated, yielded results that highlighted the increasing risk of mortality due to hypoglycemia in such efforts and also questioned the initial relation between hyperglycemia during hospitalization and a poor prognosis. Based on the fact that there is still no common ground on what is the best approach on hyperglycemia of hospitalized patients, the best practice remains to follow a different regime with different glycemic goals for different patient groups. In this review, hospitalized patients are divided into three groups; intensive care unit patients (general and cardiac), non-intensive care unit patients (general and cardiac) and peri-operative patients.

Optimizing inpatient glycemic control with basal-bolus insulin therapy

Hyperglycemia is highly prevalent in the acute-care setting and is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Evidence suggests that glycemic control in this population is suboptimal, due in part to continued use of nonphysiologic sliding-scale insulin strategies without scheduled basal insulin doses or prandial insulin with concomitant correction doses. Although the ineffectiveness and risks of sliding-scale insulin regimens have been criticized for decades, sliding-scale insulin is still the most commonly prescribed subcutaneous insulin regimen among inpatients. Improving inpatient management requires the use of scheduled basal-bolus insulin therapy that includes basal insulin, nutritional insulin, and supplemental, or correctional, insulin. Insulin analogs are the preferred insulins, as they provide a more physiologic action than human insulin regimens, are associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, and are more convenient to administer than human insulins. Standardized insulin protocols and subcutaneous insulin order sets are critical components of effective inpatient glycemic control. Although preliminary data have demonstrated that inpatient diabetes management programs involving basal-bolus insulin therapy are effective and well tolerated, more research is needed.

Effects of an educational program and a standardized insulin order form on glycemic outcomes in non-critically ill hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to managing hyperglycemia in noncritically ill hospital patients is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of targeted quality improvement interventions on insulin prescribing and glycemic control.

DESIGN

A cohort study comparing an intervention group (IG) to a concurrent control group (CCG) and an historic control group (HCG).

SETTING

University of Michigan Hospital.

PATIENTS

Hyperglycemic, noncritically ill hospital patients treated with insulin.

INTERVENTION

Physician and nurse education and a standardized insulin order form based on the principles of physiologic insulin use.

MEASUREMENTS

Glycemic control and insulin prescribing patterns.

RESULTS

Patients in the IG were more likely to be treated with a combination of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin than in the other groups. In the final adjusted regression model, patients in the IG were more likely to be in the target glucose range (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P = 0.01) and less likely to be severely hyperglycemic (OR, 0.65; P < 0.01) when compared to those in the CCG. Patients in the IG were also less likely to experience hypoglycemia than those in the CCG (P = 0.06) or the HCG (P = 0.01). Over 80% of all patient-days for all groups contained glucose readings outside of the target range.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized interventions encouraging the physiologic use of subcutaneous insulin can lead to significant improvements in glycemic control and patient safety in hospitalized patients. However, the observed improvements are modest, and poor metabolic control remains common, despite these interventions. Additional research is needed to determine the best strategy for safely achieving metabolic control in these patients.

The nuts and bolts of subcutaneous insulin therapy in non-critical care hospital settings

In non-critical care settings, patients with hyperglycemia experience increased morbidity and mortality. Despite an increased recognition of the importance of treating inpatient hyperglycemia, many patients are still not adequately controlled. Insulin offers flexibility to address varying glucose levels and therefore is the preferred therapy to achieve recommended targets and manage hyperglycemia. Traditional sliding-scale insulin regimens often ineffectively control blood glucose levels as they are unable to mimic physiologic insulin secretion. Basal-bolus insulin regimens are recognized as a more effective way to correct hyperglycemia in non-critical care settings and a systematic glycemic control program is necessary to address hyperglycemia while minimizing hypoglycemia. Critical components of these programs include addressing barriers to glycemic control, understanding varying needs of different types of patients, and developing standardized subcutaneous insulin orders to achieve target glucose levels. This article provides strategies for using insulin in non-critical care settings to facilitate glycemic control.

Sliding Scale Versus Tight Glycemic Control in the Noncritically III at a Community Hospital

Background:

Development of hyperglycemia during hospitalization is an area of concern in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Tight glycemic control has been debated for critically ill and noncritically III patients with hyperglycemia. Although many studies have been performed in the critically ill, adequate data are not available in the noncritically ill population.

Objective:

To compare traditional sliding scale (SS) with a tight glycemic control (TC) algorithm. The primary endpoint was the percentage of total blood glucose measurements in the target range of 80–150 mg/dL. The secondary endpoint evaluated was safety, defined as percentage of all blood glucose measurements that were 0–60 mg/dL.

Methods:

A 1-year, retrospective analysis from June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008, was performed evaluating all inpatients with hyperglycemia within the first 48 hours of admission to the Medical Center of Plano, Plano, TX. A cohort of patients managed with SS (n =121) was compared with those treated with TC (n = 210). Patients on SS insulin received a traditional SS regimen with regular insulin or insulin aspart based on physician preference.

Results:

Demographics and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups; however, the TC cohort was younger (64.8 ± 14.1 vs 70.8 ± 13.7 y; p< 0.001). There were more persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the TC cohort (81.9%) versus the SS cohort (60.3%; p < 0.001). In the TC cohort, 42.9% of blood glucose measurements were in the target range of 80–150 mg/dL compared with 30.6% of the measurements in the SS cohort (p < 0.001). Regarding safety, 2% of blood glucose measurements of the TC cohort were in the range of 0–60 mg/dL versus 0.3% of the SS cohort (p < 0.001). No clinical sequelae of hypoglycemia were observed. Patients achieved more blood glucose measurements in the target range when treated with TC versus SS insulin, without regard to prior history of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients treated with TC experienced more blood glucose measurements in the target range as compared with patients treated with SS with relatively low hypoglycemia rates.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism: a key patient safety priority

It is more than 50 years since the first publication of a study showing that symptomatic and fatal venous thromboembolism could be reduced with the use of thromboprophylaxis. Furthermore, it is 23 years since the first evidence-based guidelines recommended routine use of thromboprophylaxis for most hospitalized patients. However, despite the overwhelming evidence that thromboprophylaxis safely and inexpensively reduces thromboembolic complications associated with acute illness and surgery, there continue to be large gaps in the provision of this key patient safety intervention and even larger gaps in the provision of optimal thromboprophylaxis. The implementation of quality improvement strategies, both at the national level and in local hospitals, are able to increase awareness of thromboembolic risks, to increase adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines, and to decrease both clinically important thromboembolic events and hospital costs. Therefore, the objective is for every hospitalized patient to receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis based on their thromboembolic and bleeding risks.

Perioperative care of the geriatric patient with diabetes or hyperglycemia

The incidence of diabetes in the geriatric population is increasing and the resulting co-morbidities have led to corresponding increases in hospital admissions and surgeries. The weight of the evidence and national guidelines should dissuade us from allowing uncontrolled hyperglycemia in the geriatric perioperative population, but the glycemic target should be modified upwards based on the individual patient characteristics, and in environments that do not have an established track record of reaching more aggressive targets safely. Insulin is the most effective and flexible regimen to achieve inpatient glycemic control, whether by infusion or by subcutaneous basal bolus regimens. Strategies for safe and effective dosing and adjustment of insulin regimens, and methods to avoid hypoglycemia in the perioperative period are outlined. Finally, discharge planning should take into consideration a patient's HbA1c, preoperative glycemic control, inpatient glycemic regimen and control, financial and physical limitations, social support, co-morbid medical conditions, episodes of hypoglycemia, and overall prognosis to create an individualized safe and effective medication regimen for optimal glycemic control at home.

Improved inpatient use of basal insulin, reduced hypoglycemia, and improved glycemic control: effect of structured subcutaneous insulin orders and an insulin management algorithm

BACKGROUND

Structured subcutaneous insulin order sets and insulin protocols are widely advocated. The intervention effects are not well reported.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the impact of these interventions on insulin use patterns, hypoglycemia, and glycemic control.

DESIGN

Prospective observational.

SETTING

400-bed academic center.

PATIENTS

Adult non-critical care inpatients with diabetes or hyperglycemia and point-of-care (POC) glucose testing.

INTERVENTIONS

Structured insulin orders, insulin management algorithm.

MEASUREMENTS

Percent of insulin orders with basal insulin. Percent uncontrolled patient-stays (day-weighted mean glucose >or=180 mg/dL) and uncontrolled patient-days (patient-day mean glucose >or=180 mg/dL). Percent of monitored patient-days and patient-stays with hypoglycemia (glucose <or=60 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycemia (glucose <or=40 mg/dL).

RESULTS

The percent sliding scale only insulin regimens decreased (72% versus 26% with structured insulin orders, P < 0.0001 chi square). The percent of uncontrolled patient-days was 37.8% versus 33.9% versus 30.1% (P < 0.005) (TP1-Baseline; TP2-Structured insulin orders; TP3-Orders plus Algorithm). Expressed as relative risk with 95% confidence interval (RR with CI), the RR of an uncontrolled patient-stay was reduced from baseline to 0.91 (CI 0.85-0.96) in TP2, and to 0.84 (CI 0.77-0.89) in TP3, with more marked effects in the secondary analysis limited to patients with at least 8 POC values. The percent of patient-days with hypoglycemia was 3.8%, 2.9%, and 2.6% in 3 time periods, representing a RR for hypoglycemic day in TP3:TP1 of 0.68 (CI 0.59-0.78). Similar reductions were seen in risk for hypoglycemic patient-stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia and glycemic control can be improved simultaneously with structured insulin orders and management algorithms.