Documentation of hypoglycemia assessment among adults with diabetes during clinical encounters in primary care and endocrinology practices

Assessment and prevention of hypoglycaemia in primary care among U.S. Veterans: a mixed methods study

Background

Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits.

Methods

This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines.

Findings

There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted.

Interpretation

PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention.

Funding

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

Management and Outcomes of Severe Hypoglycemia Treated by Emergency Medical Services in the U.S. Upper Midwest

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors associated with emergency department (ED) transport after hypoglycemia treated by emergency medical services (EMS) and assess the impact of ED transport on severe hypoglycemia recurrence.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of a multistate advanced life support EMS provider and an integrated healthcare delivery system serving an overlapping geographic area in the upper Midwest. For adults with diabetes treated by EMS for hypoglycemia between 2013 and 2019, we examined rates of ED transport, factors associated with it, and its impact on rates of recurrent hypoglycemia requiring EMS, ED, or hospital care within 3, 7, and 30 days.

RESULTS

We identified 1,977 hypoglycemia-related EMS encounters among 1,028 adults with diabetes (mean age 63.5 years [SD 17.7], 55.2% male, 87.4% non-Hispanic White, 42.4% rural residents, and 25.6% with type 1 diabetes), of which 46.4% resulted in ED transport (31.1% of calls by patients with type 1 diabetes and 58.0% of calls by patients with type 2 diabetes). Odds of ED transport were lower in patients with type 1 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 0.44 [95% CI 0.31-0.62] vs. type 2 diabetes) and higher in patients with prior ED visits (OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.03-1.85]). Within 3, 7, and 30 days, transported patients experienced recurrent severe hypoglycemia 2.8, 5.2, and 10.6% of the time, respectively, compared with 7.4, 11.2, and 22.8% of the time among nontransported patients (all P < 0.001). This corresponds to OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.42-0.80) for recurrent severe hypoglycemia within 30 days for transported versus nontransported patients. When subset by diabetes type, odds of recurrent severe hypoglycemia among transported patients were 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.96) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.75) in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Transported patients experienced recurrent hypoglycemia requiring medical attention approximately half as often as nontransported patients, reinforcing the importance of engaging patients in follow-up to prevent recurrent events.

Hypoglycemia Communication in Primary Care Visits for Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is a common and serious adverse effect of diabetes treatment, especially for patients using insulin or insulin secretagogues. Guidelines recommend that these patients be assessed for interval hypoglycemic events at each clinical encounter and be provided anticipatory guidance for hypoglycemia prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and content of hypoglycemia communication in primary care visits.

DESIGN

Qualitative study PARTICIPANTS: We examined 83 primary care visits from one urban health practice representing 8 clinicians and 33 patients using insulin or insulin secretagogues.

APPROACH

Using a directed content analysis approach, we analyzed audio-recorded primary care visits collected as part of the Achieving Blood Pressure Control Together study, a randomized trial of behavioral interventions for hypertension. The coding framework included communication about interval hypoglycemia, defined as discussion of hypoglycemic events or symptoms; the components of hypoglycemia anticipatory guidance in diabetes guidelines; and hypoglycemia unawareness. Hypoglycemia documentation in visit notes was compared to visit transcripts.

KEY RESULTS

Communication about interval hypoglycemia occurred in 24% of visits, and hypoglycemic events were reported in 16%. Despite patients voicing fear of hypoglycemia, clinicians rarely assessed hypoglycemia frequency, severity, or its impact on quality of life. Hypoglycemia anticipatory guidance was provided in 21% of visits which focused on diet and behavior change; clinicians rarely counseled on hypoglycemia treatment or avoidance of driving. Limited discussions of hypoglycemia unawareness occurred in 8% of visits. Documentation in visit notes had low sensitivity but high specificity for ascertaining interval hypoglycemia communication or hypoglycemic events, compared to visit transcripts.

CONCLUSIONS

In this high hypoglycemia risk population, communication about interval hypoglycemia and counseling for hypoglycemia prevention occurred in a minority of visits. There is a need to support clinicians to more regularly assess their patients' hypoglycemia burden and enhance counseling practices in order to optimize hypoglycemia prevention in primary care.

Variation in hypoglycemia ascertainment and report in type 2 diabetes observational studies: a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies constitute an important evidence base for hypoglycemia in diabetes management. This requires consistent and reliable ascertainment and reporting methodology, particularly in studies of type 2 diabetes where hypoglycemia risk is heterogeneous. Therefore, we aimed to examine the definitions of hypoglycemia used by observational studies of patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a meta-epidemiological review of observational studies reporting on hypoglycemia or evaluating glucose-lowering medications in adults with type 2 diabetes. MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched from January 1970 to May 2018. The definitions of non-severe, severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia were examined.

RESULTS

We reviewed 243 studies: 47.7% reported on non-severe hypoglycemia, 77.8% on severe hypoglycemia and 16.9% on nocturnal hypoglycemia; 5.8% did not specify. Among 116 studies reporting non-severe hypoglycemia, 18.1% provided no definition, 23.3% used glucose values, 38.8% relied on patient-reported symptoms, 17.2% accepted either glucose values or patient-reported symptoms and 2.6% relied on International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. Among 189 studies reporting severe hypoglycemia, 11.1% provided no definition, 53.4% required symptoms needing assistance, 3.7% relied on glucose values, 14.8% relied on ICD codes, 2.6% relied on ICD codes or glucose values and 15.9% required both symptoms needing assistance and glucose values. Overall, 38.2% of non-severe and 67.7% of severe hypoglycemia definitions were consistent with the International Hypoglycemia Study Group.

CONCLUSIONS

The marked heterogeneity in how hypoglycemia is defined in observational studies may contribute to the inadequate understanding and correction of hypoglycemia risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes.