Achieving tight glycaemic control

Planned change or emergent change implementation approach and nurses' professional clinical autonomy

BACKGROUND

Nurses' clinical autonomy is considered important for patients' outcome and influenced by the implementation approach of innovations. Emergent change approach with participation in the implementation process is thought to increase clinical autonomy. Planned change approach without this participation is thought not to increase clinical autonomy. Evidence of these effects on clinical autonomy is however limited.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the changes in clinical autonomy and in personal norms and values for a planned change and emergent change implementation of an innovation, e.g. intensive insulin therapy.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative study with two geographically separated nurses' teams on one intensive care unit (ICU), randomly assigned to the experimental conditions.

METHODS

Data were collected from March 2008 to January 2009. Pre-existing differences in perception of team and innovation characteristics were excluded using instruments based on the innovation contingency model. The Nursing Activity Scale was used to measure clinical autonomy. The Personal Values and Norms instrument was used to assess orientation towards nursing activities and the Team Learning Processes instrument to assess learning as a team.

RESULTS

Pre-implementation the measurements did not differ. Post-implementation, clinical autonomy was increased in the emergent change team and decreased in the planned change team. The Personal Values and Norms instrument showed in the emergent change team a decreased hierarchic score and increased developmental and rational scores. In the planned change team the hierarchical and group scores were increased. Learning as a team did not differ between the teams.

CONCLUSIONS

In both teams there was a change in clinical autonomy and orientation towards nursing activities, in line with the experimental conditions. Emergent change implementation resulted in more clinical autonomy than planned change implementation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

If an innovation requires the nurses to make their own clinical decisions, an emergent change implementation should help to establish this clinical autonomy.

Nursing involvement improves compliance with tight blood glucose control in the trauma ICU: a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

The importance of tight glycaemic control has gained acceptance over the last 5 years as a critical component of routine intensive care unit (ICU) measures. In an environment already strained for resources and staffing, however, effective strategies providing for increased input and responsibility of bedside nursing personnel are paramount to successful implementation.

HYPOTHESIS

Increasing input and responsibilities of ICU nursing staff in tight glycaemic control policies improves glucose control in the trauma ICU.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, we conducted a prospective "before-after" trial examining the effect of nursing education and input on outcome of a tight (goal 80-120 mg/dL) glycaemic control protocol. After a three month assessment of compliance with a previously physician-developed protocol, an educational in-service was conducted for all trauma ICU nursing staff. Nursing staff were then asked to provide input on the development of a new protocol using multiple-choice ballots to define 7 components of protocol criteria. Using nursing input, we developed and implemented a new glycaemic protocol that shifted much of the responsibility for initiation and subsequent adjustment of insulin infusion to the bedside nurse, allowing them to more liberally utilise their bedside clinical judgment and knowledge of the specific patient.

RESULTS

Nursing input on seven factors of protocol criteria did not differ significantly from the previously existing protocol, except with reference to nursing desire for increased responsibility in the implementation and maintenance of tight glycaemic control. After three months implementation of a new protocol developed utilising nursing input, both mean blood glucose levels achieved (137.8 mg/dL vs. 128.2mg/dL, p=0.028) and time to first hourly blood glucose within goal range (<120 mg/dL) was improved (36 h vs. 9h). The number of hypoglycaemic (BS <60) episodes increased slightly after revision (1 event vs. 5 event), with no hypoglycaemic seizures or coma occurring during either period.

CONCLUSION

Nursing input and increased responsibility improved the results of a tight glycaemic control in our trauma ICU. Increasing nursing input in the development and implementation of a tight glycaemic policies can result in safe and effective improved glucose control in the trauma ICU.

A systematic review on quality indicators for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: need for an unambiguous indicator reference subset

Introduction

The objectives of this study were to systematically identify and summarize quality indicators of tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients, and to inspect the applicability of their definitions.

Methods

We searched in MEDLINE^® for all studies evaluating a tight glycaemic control protocol and/or quality of glucose control that reported original data from a clinical trial or observational study on critically ill adult patients.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 30 different indicators were extracted and categorized into four nonorthogonal categories: blood glucose zones (for example, 'hypoglycaemia'); blood glucose levels (for example, 'mean blood glucose level'); time intervals (for example, 'time to occurrence of an event'); and protocol characteristics (for example, 'blood glucose sampling frequency'). Hypoglycaemia-related indicators were used in 43 out of 49 studies, acting as a proxy for safety, but they employed many different definitions. Blood glucose level summaries were used in 41 out of 49 studies, reported as means and/or medians during the study period or at a certain time point (for example, the morning blood glucose level or blood glucose level upon starting insulin therapy). Time spent in the predefined blood glucose level range, time needed to reach the defined blood glucose level target, hyperglycaemia-related indicators and protocol-related indicators were other frequently used indicators. Most indicators differ in their definitions even when they are meant to measure the same underlying concept. More importantly, many definitions are not precise, prohibiting their applicability and hence the reproducibility and comparability of research results.

Conclusions

An unambiguous indicator reference subset is necessary. The result of this systematic review can be used as a starting point from which to develop a standard list of well defined indicators that are associated with clinical outcomes or that concur with clinicians' subjective views on the quality of the regulatory process.