Reducing Diabetic Ketoacidosis Intensive Care Unit Admissions Through an Electronic Health Record-Driven, Standardized Care Pathway

Creation of an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Referral Pathway for Identifying Patients Who Would Benefit From Inflammatory Bowel Disease Specialist Consultation

BACKGROUND

Recommendations regarding signs and symptoms that should prompt referral of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to an IBD specialist for a consultation could serve to improve the quality of care for these patients. Our aim was to develop a consult care pathway consisting of clinical features related to IBD that should prompt appropriate consultation.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was performed to identify clinical features that should prompt consultation with an IBD specialist. A panel of 11 experts was convened over 4 meetings to develop a consult care pathway using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Items identified via scoping review were ranked and were divided into major and minor criteria. Additionally, a literature and panel review was conducted assessing potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the consult care pathway.

RESULTS

Of 43 features assessed, 13 were included in the care pathway as major criteria and 15 were included as minor criteria. Experts agreed that stratification into major criteria and minor criteria was appropriate and that 1 major or 2 or more minor criteria should be required to consider consultation. The greatest barrier to implementation was considered to be organizational resource allocation, while endorsements by national gastroenterology and general medicine societies were considered to be the strongest facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel referral care pathway identifies key criteria that could be used to triage patients with IBD who would benefit from IBD specialist consultation. Future research will be required to validate these findings and assess the impact of implementing this pathway in routine IBD-related care.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

Why Patients Fall Through the Cracks: Assessment of Patients' Overactive Bladder Treatment

Objective: Despite an established treatment algorithm for overactive bladder (OAB), it is unclear how many patients proceed through each step. Our objective was to evaluate the percentage of patients receiving each step of care and identify reasons why patients did not receive certain treatments. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study with cross-sectional survey of new OAB patients. The medical record was queried for relevant patient characteristics and documentation of conservative, medical, and third-line therapies. In the survey, patients were asked about current bladder symptoms and reasons why they did not use certain treatments. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: One hundred eleven patients met the inclusion criteria; the most common diagnosis was mixed incontinence (40%, n = 45). The median number of visits for OAB was 2 (range 1-8). On retrospective analysis, 64% (71) of patients had documented attempts at conservative therapy. Seventy-six percent (84) of patients attempted medical therapy, and only 11% (12) progressed to any third-line therapy. Fifty-nine percent (64) of eligible patients responded to the survey. Fifty-three percent (34) of respondents reported persistent moderate to very severe bother due to bladder symptoms. Thirty percent to fifty percent of patients who did not attempt one or more of the three levels of OAB therapy reported that they were never offered that treatment option. Conclusions: Many patients do not progress to the next steps in OAB therapy despite failure of more conservative treatments. Barriers to care included limited follow-up and education about other therapy options. A formalized institutional care pathway may lead to improved OAB treatment.

Evaluation in Life Cycle of Information Technology (ELICIT) framework: Supporting the innovation life cycle from business case assessment to summative evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to develop an evaluation framework for electronic health record (EHR)-integrated innovations to support evaluation activities at each of four information technology (IT) life cycle phases: planning, development, implementation, and operation.

METHODS

The evaluation framework was developed based on a review of existing evaluation frameworks from health informatics and other domains (human factors engineering, software engineering, and social sciences); expert consensus; and real-world testing in multiple EHR-integrated innovation studies.

RESULTS

The resulting Evaluation in Life Cycle of IT (ELICIT) framework covers four IT life cycle phases and three measure levels (society, user, and IT). The ELICIT framework recommends 12 evaluation steps: (1) business case assessment; (2) stakeholder requirements gathering; (3) technical requirements gathering; (4) technical acceptability assessment; (5) user acceptability assessment; (6) social acceptability assessment; (7) social implementation assessment; (8) initial user satisfaction assessment; (9) technical implementation assessment; (10) technical portability assessment; (11) long-term user satisfaction assessment; and (12) social outcomes assessment.

DISCUSSION

Effective evaluation requires a shared understanding and collaboration across disciplines throughout the entire IT life cycle. In contrast with previous evaluation frameworks, the ELICIT framework focuses on all phases of the IT life cycle across the society, user, and IT levels. Institutions seeking to establish evaluation programs for EHR-integrated innovations could use our framework to create such shared understanding and justify the need to invest in evaluation.

CONCLUSION

As health care undergoes a digital transformation, it will be critical for EHR-integrated innovations to be systematically evaluated. The ELICIT framework can facilitate these evaluations.

Special Commentary: Using Clinical Decision Support Systems to Bring Predictive Models to the Glaucoma Clinic

Advances in the field of predictive modeling using artificial intelligence and machine learning have the potential to improve clinical care and outcomes, but only if the results of these models are presented appropriately to clinicians at the time they make decisions for individual patients. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems could be used to accomplish this. Modern CDS systems are computer-based tools designed to improve clinician decision making for individual patients. However, not all CDS systems are effective. Four principles that have been shown in other medical fields to be important for successful CDS system implementation are (1) integration into clinician workflow, (2) user-centered interface design, (3) evaluation of CDS systems and rules, and (4) standards-based development so the tools can be deployed across health systems.