Pathways to quality inpatient management of hyperglycemia and diabetes: a call to action

Technology in the management of diabetes in hospitalised adults

Suboptimal glycaemic management in hospitals has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and increased financial costs to healthcare systems. Despite the availability of guidelines for inpatient glycaemic management, implementation remains challenging because of the increasing workload of clinical staff and rising prevalence of diabetes. The development of novel and innovative technologies that support the clinical workflow and address the unmet need for effective and safe inpatient diabetes care delivery is still needed. There is robust evidence that the use of diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring and closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glycaemic management in outpatient settings; however, relatively little is known of its potential benefits and application in inpatient diabetes management. Emerging data from clinical studies show that diabetes technologies such as integrated clinical decision support systems can potentially mediate safer and more efficient inpatient diabetes care, while continuous glucose sensors and closed-loop systems show early promise in improving inpatient glycaemic management. This review aims to provide an overview of current evidence related to diabetes technology use in non-critical care adult inpatient settings. We highlight existing barriers that may hinder or delay implementation, as well as strategies and opportunities to facilitate the clinical readiness of inpatient diabetes technology in the future.

Longitudinal Digital Glucometric Benchmarking to Evaluate the Impact of Institutional Diabetes Care Initiatives in Adults With Diabetes Mellitus Over the 2016-2020 Period

BACKGROUND

While glucometric benchmarking has been used to compare glucose management between institutions, the value of longitudinal intra-institution benchmarking to assess quality improvement changes is not established.

METHODS

A prospective six-month observational study (October 2019-March 2020 inclusive) of inpatients with diabetes or newly detected hyperglycemia admitted to eight medical and surgical wards at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Networked blood glucose (BG) meters were used to collect capillary BG levels. Outcomes were measures of glycemic control assessed by mean and threshold glucometric measures and comparison with published glucometric benchmarks. Intra-institution comparison was over the 2016-2020 period.

RESULTS

In all, 620 admissions (588 unique individuals) met the inclusion criteria, contributing 15 164 BG results over 4023 admission-days. Compared with the 2016 cohort from the same institution, there was increased BG testing (3.8 [SD = 2.2) vs 3.3 [SD = 1.7] BG measurements per patient-day, P < .001), lower mean patient-day mean glucose (PDMG; 8.9 mmol/L [SD = 3.2] vs 9.5 mmol/L [SD = 3.3], P < .001), and reduced mean and threshold measures of hyperglycemia (P < .001 for all). Comparison with institutions across the United States revealed lower incidence of mean PDMG >13.9 or >16.7 mmol/L, and reduced hypoglycemia (<3.9, <2.8, and <2.2 mmol/L), when compared with published benchmarks from an earlier period (2009-2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive digital-based glucometric benchmarking confirmed institutional quality improvement changes were followed by reduced hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in a five-year comparison. Longitudinal glucometric benchmarking enables evaluation and validation of changes to institutional diabetes care management practices.

Improving inpatient hyperglycaemia in non-critically ill adults in resident wards through audit and feedback

Inpatient hyperglycaemia is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality, number of rehospitalisations and length of hospitalisation. Although the advantages of proper glycaemic control in hospitalised patients with diabetes are well established, a variety of barriers limit accomplishment of blood glucose targets. Our primary aim was to decrease the number of glucose values above 180 mg/dL in non-critical care hospitalised patients using an audit and feedback intervention with pharmacy and internal medicine residents. A resident-led multidisciplinary team implemented the quality improvement (QI) project including conception, literature review, educating residents, iterative development of audit and feedback tools and data analysis. The multidisciplinary team met every 5 weeks and undertook three 'plan-do-study-act' cycles over an 8-month intervention period (August 2022 to March 2023) to educate residents on inpatient hyperglycaemia management, develop and implement an audit and feedback process and assess areas for improvement. We performed 1045 audits analysing 16 095 accu-checks on 395 non-duplicated patients. Most audits showed compliance with guidelines. The monthly run-on chart shows per cent of glucose values above 180 mg/dL in our non-ICU hospitalised patients and an overall pre-to-post comparison of 25.1%-23.0% (p value<0.05). The intervention was well accepted by residents evidenced by survey results. We did not meet our primary aim to reduce hyperglycaemia by 30% and this combined with the audits showing mostly compliance with guidelines suggests that prescribing behaviour was not a key driver of inpatient hyperglycaemia in our population. This internal medicine resident and pharmacy interprofessional collaboration with audit and feedback for inpatient hyperglycaemia was feasible, well accepted and had a statistically significant yet small improvement in inpatient hyperglycaemia. The project may be helpful to others wishing to explore inpatient hyperglycaemia, interprofessional QI with pharmacists, resident-led QI and audit and feedback.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a non-Icu hospital setting: The patient's journey

AIMS

Although consistent data support the outpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic burden, and clinical outcomes, there are limited data regarding its use in the hospital setting, particularly in the non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) setting. The emerging use of CGM in the non-critical care setting may be useful in increasing the efficiency of hospital care and reducing the length of stay for patients with diabetes while improving glycemic control.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The purpose of this Expert Opinion paper was to evaluate the state of the art and provide a practical model of how CGM can be implemented in the hospital.

SETTING

A patient's CGM journey from admission to the ward to the application of the sensor, from patient education on the device during hospitalization until discharge of the patient to maintain remote control.

CONCLUSIONS

This practical approach for the implementation and management of CGM in patients with diabetes admitted to non-ICUs could guide hospitals in their diabetes management initiatives using CGM, helping to identify patients most likely to benefit and suggesting how this technology can be implemented to maximize clinical benefits.

Optimal staffing for a good quality inpatient diabetes service

INTRODUCTION

Increasing numbers of people admitted to hospital have diabetes and need specialist support. To date, there is no mechanism which can help teams estimate the number of health care professionals they need to provide optimal care for people with diabetes in hospitals.

METHODS

The Joint British Diabetes Societies (JBDS) for Inpatient Care Group organised a survey of specialist inpatient diabetes teams in the UK for current staffing and the perception of optimal staffing using mailing lists available through their representative organisations. The results were verified and confirmed by one-to-one conversations with individual respondents and discussed in multiple expert-group meetings to agree on the results.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 17 Trusts covering 30 hospital sites. Current diabetes specialist staffing level per 100 people with diabetes in hospital (Median, IQR) for consultants was 0.24 (0.22-0.37), diabetes inpatient specialist nurses was 1.94 (1.22-2.6), dieticians was 0.00 (0.00-0.00), podiatrists was 0.19 (0.00-0.62), pharmacists was 0.00 (0.00-0.37), psychologists was 0.00 (0.00-0.00). The teams also reported that for optimal care the total staff needed for each group (Median, IQR) was much higher; consultants 0.65 (0.50-0.88), specialist nurses 3.38 (2.78-4.59), dieticians 0.48 (0.33-0.72), podiatrists, 0.93 (0.65-1.24), pharmacists, 0.65 (0.40-0.79) and psychologists 0.33 (0.27-0.58). Based on the results of the survey, the JBDS expert group produced an Excel calculator to estimate staffing needs of any hospital site in question just by populating a few of the cells.

CONCLUSION

Current inpatient diabetes staffing is much lower than needed in most Trusts who responded to the survey. The JBDS calculator can provide an estimate of the staffing needs of any hospital.

Diabetic complications and prospective immunotherapy

The incidence of Diabetes Mellitus is increasing globally. Individuals who have been burdened with diabetes for many years often develop complications as a result of hyperglycemia. More and more research is being conducted highlighting inflammation as an important factor in disease progression. In all kinds of diabetes, hyperglycemia leads to activation of alternative glucose metabolic pathways, resulting in problematic by-products including reactive oxygen species and advanced glycation end products. This review takes a look into the pathogenesis of three specific diabetic complications; retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy as well as their current treatment options. By considering recent research papers investigating the effects of immunotherapy on relevant conditions in animal models, multiple strategies are suggested for future treatment and prevention of diabetic complications with an emphasis on molecular targets associated with the inflammation.

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.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Harm Measures for Severe Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia: Is Your Hospital Ready?

Poor inpatient glycemic management is associated with increased lengths of stay and in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Improving inpatient glycemic outcomes can be difficult because there are no standardized benchmarks, and many hospitals lack the capacity to electronically extract and analyze glucose data. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently proposed new electronic clinical quality measures to be incorporated into its mandatory Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. Among these measures is an assessment of hospital harm from severe hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia. Hospitals must be ready to collect the necessary data for these new measures by January 2023. The new measures could bring welcome attention to the need to implement guideline-based inpatient glycemic management. However, some hospitals that serve high-risk populations may be at risk for losing funding if they are unable to comply.

Efficacy and Safety of Intensive Versus Nonintensive Supplemental Insulin With a Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

Administration of supplemental sliding scale insulin for correction of hyperglycemia in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes is frequently used with basal-bolus insulin regimens. In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial we tested whether glycemic control is similar with and without aggressive sliding scale insulin treatment before meals and bedtime in patients treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes with admission blood glucose (BG) 140-400 mg/dL treated with basal-bolus insulin were randomized to intensive (correction for BG >140 mg/dL, n = 108) or to nonintensive (correction for BG >260 mg/dL, n = 107) administration of rapid-acting sliding scale insulin before meals and bedtime. The groups received the same amount of sliding scale insulin for BG >260 mg/dL. Primary outcome was difference in mean daily BG levels between the groups during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Mean daily BG in the nonintensive group was noninferior to BG in the intensive group with equivalence margin of 18 mg/dL (intensive 172 ± 38 mg/dL vs. nonintensive 173 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.001 for noninferiority). There were no differences in the proportion of target BG readings of 70-180 mg/dL, <70 or <54 mg/dL (hypoglycemia), or >350 mg/dL (severe hyperglycemia) or total, basal, or prandial insulin doses. Significantly fewer subjects received sliding scale insulin in the nonintensive (n = 36 [34%]) compared with the intensive (n = 98 [91%] [P < 0.0001]) group with no differences in sliding scale insulin doses between the groups among those who received sliding scale insulin (intensive 7 ± 4 units/day vs. nonintensive 8 ± 4 units/day, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Among non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes on optimal basal-bolus insulin regimen with moderate hyperglycemia (BG <260 mg/dL), a less intensive sliding scale insulin treatment did not significantly affect glycemic control.

Digital algorithm-guided insulin therapy in home healthcare for elderly persons with type 2 diabetes: A proof-of-concept study

GlucoTab@MobileCare, a digital workflow and decision support system with integrated basal and basal-plus insulin algorithm was investigated for user acceptance, safety and efficacy in persons with type 2 diabetes receiving home health care by nurses. During a three months study nine participants (five female, age 77 ± 10 years, HbA1c 60 ± 13 mmol/mol (study start) vs. 57 ± 12 mmol/mol (study end) received basal or basal-plus insulin therapy as suggested by the digital system. In total 95% of all suggested tasks (blood glucose (BG) measurements, insulin dose calculations, insulin injections) were performed according to the digital system. Mean morning BG was 171 ± 68 mg/dL in the first study month vs. 145 ± 35 mg/dL in the last study month, indicating a reduced glycemic variability of 33 mg/dL (standard deviation). No hypoglycemic episode &lt; 54 mg/dL occurred. User’s adherence was high and the digital system supported a safe and effective treatment. Larger scale studies are needed to confirm findings under routine care.

German Clinical Trials Register ID

DRKS00015059

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Adult Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected 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 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia in Oncologic Outpatients: A Narrative Review Using the Quadruple Aim Framework

Glucocorticoids are a central part of cancer treatment protocols. Their use in patients receiving chemotherapy increases patient risk of hyperglycemia and associated adverse outcomes. Despite this, there have been few published protocols that guide the management of this patient group. In this narrative review, we use the quadruple aim as a framework to evaluate the current literature, including interventions, on glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in patients receiving oncologic treatment, with a focus on the outpatient setting. Findings were drawn from published review articles, observational studies, qualitative reports and costing data. Results were synthesized using the framework's 4 dimensions of care: population health, provider experience, patient experience and cost. Prospective studies proposing an intervention on oncologic patients receiving glucocorticoids were identified as intervention studies. Management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in oncologic patients is a complex problem with no published interventions addressing all components of the quadruple aim. Most evidence on this population is based on retrospective studies. Six prospective intervention studies were identified and highlighted in this review, and only 2 were exclusively in the outpatient context. Challenges included lack of standardization in screening strategies, paucity of interventions that have examined impact on patient and provider experience. There is limited evaluation of the impact of interventions targeting glycemic control on clinical outcomes and cost of care delivery, especially in the outpatient context. We propose a conceptual framework for evaluation of quality improvement programs. Management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in the outpatient setting is complex and requires well-designed intervention studies evaluated across the quadruple aim.

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.

Limited Documentation and Treatment Quality of Glycemic Inpatient Care in Relation to Structural Deficits of Heterogeneous Insulin Charts at a Large University Hospital

OBJECTIVES

Insulin charts represent a key component in the inpatient glycemic management process. The aim was to evaluate the quality of structure, documentation, and treatment of diabetic inpatient care to design a new standardized insulin chart for a large university hospital setting.

METHODS

Historically grown blank insulin charts in use at 39 general wards were collected and evaluated for quality structure features. Documentation and treatment quality were evaluated in a consecutive snapshot audit of filled-in charts. The primary end point was the percentage of charts with any medication error.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 different blank insulin charts with variable designs and significant structural deficits were identified. A medication error occurred in 55% of the 102 audited filled-in insulin charts, consisting of prescription and management errors in 48% and 16%, respectively. Charts of insulin-treated patients had more medication errors relative to patients treated with oral medication (P < 0.01). Chart design did support neither clinical authorization of individual insulin prescription (10%), nor insulin administration confirmed by nurses' signature (25%), nor treatment of hypoglycemia (0%), which resulted in a reduced documentation and treatment quality in clinical practice 7%, 30%, 25%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of charts with variable design characteristics and structural deficits were in use across the inpatient wards. More than half of the inpatients had a chart displaying a medication error. Lack of structure quality features of the charts had an impact on documentation and treatment quality. Based on identified deficits and international standards, a new insulin chart was developed to overcome these quality hurdles.

Insulin management in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus on high-dose glucocorticoids: Management of steroid-exacerbated hyperglycemia

Background

Glucocorticoid (GC)-exacerbated hyperglycemia is prevalent in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) but evidence-based insulin guidelines in inpatient settings are lacking.

Methods and findings

Retrospective cohort study with capillary blood glucose (CBG) readings and insulin use, dosed with 50% basal (glargine)-50% bolus (lispro) insulin, analyzed in hospitalized patients with insulin-treated DM given GC and matched controls without GC (n = 131 pairs). GC group (median daily prednisone-equivalent dose: 53.36 mg (IQR 30.00, 80.04)) had greatest CBG differences compared to controls at dinner (254±69 vs. 184±63 mg/dL, P<0.001) and bedtime (260±72 vs. 182±55 mg/dL, P<0.001). In GC group, dinner CBG was 30% higher than lunch (254±69 vs. 199±77 mg/dL, P<0.001) when similar lispro to controls given at lunch. Bedtime CBG not different from dinner when 20% more lispro given at dinner (0.12 units/kg (IQR 0.08, 0.17) vs. 0.10 units/kg (0.06, 0.14), P<0.01). Despite receiving more lispro, bedtime hypoglycemic events were lower in GC group (0.0% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Since equal bolus doses inadequately treat large dinner and bedtime GC-exacerbated glycemic excursions, initiating higher bolus insulin at lunch and dinner with additional enhanced GC-specific insulin supplemental scale may be needed as initial insulin doses in setting of high-dose GC.

Facilitators and barriers of herbal medicine use in diabetic patients: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In several countries such as Iran, the use of complementary and alternative medical products like herbal medicine is growing. There is, however, a lack of research on the prospects of herbal medicine patrons regarding facilitators and herbal medicine use barriers. The aim of this study was to explain the facilitators and the barriers of herbal medicine use in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative one-to-one in-depth interviews were conducted with patients with T2DM from the Yazd Diabetes Research Center, using a semi-structured guide. For the recruitment of T2DM participants who used herbal medicine beside conventional medicine, purposeful sampling was used. Analysis of the data was carried out using the steps proposed by Graneheim and Landman strategies.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were interviewed. There were 2 subjects (facilitators and barriers herbal medicine use), 8 categories, and 89 initial codes. The facilitators included individual preferences, preparation skills, and family support and the factors obstructing the use of herbal medicine included insufficient skills about preparing, lack of easy access to consumption, insufficient of efficacy of herbal medicine, and negative properties of herbal medicine and taking time in preparing herbal medicine.

CONCLUSION

Although some people use herbal medicine, the interest in use of herbal medicine is limited because of inadequate awareness of the impact and usage them. Therefore, the use of effective strategy in the integration of herbal remedies with conventional medicine can promote well-being of patients.

The Endocrine Hospitalist: Enhancing the Quality of Diabetes Care

The endocrine hospitalist and inpatient diabetes management team increases access to endocrinology consultations and improves glycemic control and quality metrics such as length of stay and hospital readmission. Enhanced glycemic care is needed in both academic and community hospital settings. Endocrine fellowship programs should implement endocrine hospitalist rotations with emphasis on training endocrine fellows to deliver fast-paced inpatient endocrine care. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and a "start-up" culture within the field of Endocrinology should be encouraged and supported by healthcare systems.

Access to inpatient diabetes resources: hospital characteristics from the inaugural Queensland Inpatient Diabetes Survey

AIMS

To establish the prevalence of diabetes in Queensland hospitals and assess the availability of specialised diabetes staff, educational resources and policies for inpatient diabetes management, including assessing equity of access to these resources.

METHODS

The hospital capacity, prevalence of diabetes, diabetes-related resources and the availability of diabetes-related guidelines were assessed in 25 hospitals medical, surgical, mental health, high-dependency and intensive care wards of level 2-6 public hospitals across Queensland. Diabetes-dedicated staffing measured in full-time equivalents, care delivery resources, access to educational resources, standard policies and procedures for care were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five hospitals included 4265 occupied beds. The median prevalence of diabetes was 22.9% (IQR 17.3-28.5%) with an average 2.9 FTE per 100 patients with diabetes (IQR 0-6.3). There was difficulty in accessing a diabetes educator in 48% (n = 12), diabetes specialist in 44% (n = 11), orthopaedic surgeon in 48% (n = 12), podiatrist in 58% (n = 14) and vascular surgeon in 64% (n = 16) of hospitals. Small hospitals had more difficulty accessing all members of the diabetes team compared to large hospitals including credentialled diabetes educators 33% (n = 4) versus 62% (n = 8) (p = 0.0001), diabetes specialists 17% (n = 2) versus 69% (n = 9) (p < 0.00001) and vascular surgeons 33% (n = 4) versus 92% (n = 12) (p < 0.000001). Diabetes-related staff education and regular nurse training was available in 40% (n = 10) of hospitals. A multi-disciplinary foot care team was available in 28% (n = 7) of hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Queensland's has a high prevalence of diabetes in hospitalised patients and they have limited and inequitable access to inpatient diabetes-related care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Investigating the effect of an education program on diabetes and lipid lowering medication usage following coronary artery bypass graft surgery

BACKGROUND

Guidelines advocate multifactorial cardiovascular risk management in patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In hospitalised patients with diabetes following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) we evaluated the impacts of decision-support algorithms for optimising glycaemia and lipid-lowering. We also assessed the safety of initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors near time of hospital discharge.

METHODS

This was a single-site, pre- and post-intervention analysis of glucose and lipid management in consecutive hospitalised patients with diabetes undergoing CABG surgery. The intervention involved education and decision-support algorithms designed by a multidisciplinary committee to guide cardiac surgery unit clinicians.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in the study. The pre- and post-intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics (HbA1c 7.9 ± 1.9% versus 8.1 ± 1.8%). Of 4092 blood glucose measurements the incidence of levels between 5 to 10 mmol/L was not different post-intervention (55.5% versus 57.0%, p = 0.441). Fewer endocrinology consultations occurred (59.0% versus 45.0%, p = 0.048) and rates of hypoglycaemia remained low. High-intensity statin was prescribed in >90% pre- and post-intervention although non-statin lipid-lowering agents remained <10% despite patients not achieving LDL-C targets. No 30-day readmissions for diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The intervention did not improve inpatient glycaemia or increase non-statin lipid-lowering prescriptions in patients with diabetes following CABG surgery but did reduce reliance on specialty input. Initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy near time of hospital discharge was not associated with safety concerns. Alternative interventions or strategies are required to optimise glycaemia and non-statin lipid-lowering therapy prescribing in this setting. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Diabetes Management According to Health Status in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Staying in Geriatric Care Facilities

BACKGROUND

About 25% of adults >70 years suffer from type 2 diabetes. Due to the heterogeneity of the geriatric population, guidelines emphasize the need to individualize glycemic goals and simplify treatment strategies with the main focus of avoiding hypoglycemia. The aim of this study was to assess glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in geriatric care facilities based on their individual health status.

METHODS

170 medical records of older adults with type 2 diabetes in geriatric care facilities were retrospectively assessed (64.7% female, age 80 ± 9 years; glycated hemoglobin 6.8% ± 3.6% [51 ± 16 mmol/mol]; body mass index 27.9 ± 5.8 kg/m2). Based on the individual health status, patients were allocated to three groups (healthy n = 27, complex n = 86, and poor n = 57).

RESULTS

The overall blood glucose (BG) value was highest in the poor health group with 188 ± 47 mg/dL (poor) vs 167 ± 42 mg/dL (complex) vs 150 ± 34 mg/dL (healthy). BG values of 1.6% (poor) vs 2.8% (complex) vs 1.5% (healthy) of patients were below 90 mg/dL. 36.8% (poor) vs 23.4% (complex) vs 18.5% (healthy) of patients received insulin as the main diabetes therapy, but of these only 14.3% (poor) vs 20% (complex) vs 40% (healthy) were treated with basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, BG values were higher in the poor and complex health group. There were a few low BG values in all groups. Although recommended by international guidelines, basal insulin therapy with its low complexity and low hypoglycemic risk is still underused, especially in the poor health group. Therefore, simplification of diabetes therapy should be considered further.

Managing inpatient hyperglycaemia and initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy in the setting of diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

We previously showed that implementing algorithms for managing diabetes in acute coronary syndrome was associated with improved inpatient glycaemic control and increased sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor prescriptions. The present study performed 1 year later found that inpatient hyperglycaemia had relapsed to pre-intervention rates, although SGLT2 inhibitor prescriptions remained increased. We discuss the challenges of improving inpatient glycaemic control.

Safe and Sufficient Glycemic Control by Using a Digital Clinical Decision Support System for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a Routine Setting on General Hospital Wards

The aim was to investigate the applicability of a clinical decision support system in a real-world inpatient setting for patients with type 2 diabetes on general hospital wards.A total of 150 patients with type 2 diabetes requiring subcutaneous insulin therapy were treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy guided by a decision support system (GlucoTab) providing automated workflow tasks and suggestions for insulin dosing to health care professionals.By using the system, a mean daily blood glucose (BG) of 159 ± 32 mg/dL was achieved. 68.8% of measurements were in the target range (70 to <180 mg/dL). The percentage of BG values <40, <70, and ≥300 mg/dL was 0.02%, 2.2%, and 2.3%, respectively. Health care professionals' adherence to suggested insulin doses and workflow tasks was high (>93% and 91%, respectively).The decision support system facilitates safe and efficacious inpatient diabetes care by standardizing treatment workflow and providing decision support for basal-bolus insulin dosing.

Electronic Diabetes Management System Replaces Paper Insulin Chart: Improved Quality in Diabetes Inpatient Care Processes Due to Digitalization

BACKGROUND

GlucoTab, an electronic diabetes management system (eDMS), supports healthcare professionals (HCPs) in inpatient blood glucose (BG) management at point-of-care and was implemented for the first time under routine conditions in a regional hospital to replace the paper insulin chart.

METHOD

To investigate quality of the eDMS for inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus a monocentric retrospective before-after evaluation was conducted. We compared documentation possibilities by assessing a blank paper chart vs the eDMS user interface. Further quality aspects were compared by assessing filled-in paper charts (n = 106) vs filled-in eDMS documentation (n = 241). HCPs (n = 59) were interviewed regarding eDMS satisfaction.

RESULTS

The eDMS represented an improvement of documentation possibilities by offering a more structured and comprehensive user interface compared to the blank paper chart. The number of good diabetes days averaged to a median value of four days in both groups (paper chart: 4.38 [0-7] vs eDMS: 4.38 [0-7] days). Median daily BG was 170 (117-297) mg/dL vs 168 (86-286) mg/dL and median fasting BG was 152 (95-285) mg/dL vs 145 (69-333) mg/dL, and 0.1% vs 0.4% BG values <54 mg/dL were documented. Diabetes documentation quality improved when using eDMS, for example, documentation of ordered BG measurement frequency (1% vs 100%) and ordered BG targets (0% vs 100%). HCPs stated that by using eDMS errors could be prevented (74%), and digital support of work processes was completed (77%). Time saving was noted by 8 out of 11 HCPs and estimated at 10-15 minutes per patient day by two HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The eDMS completely replaced the paper chart, showed comparable glycemic control, was positively accepted by HCPs, and is suitable for inpatient diabetes management.

Evaluation of an implemented new insulin chart to improve quality and safety of diabetes care in a large university hospital: a follow-up study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate structure, documentation, treatment quality of a new implemented standardised insulin chart in adult medical inpatient wards at a university hospital.

DESIGN

A before-after study (3 to 5 months after implementation) was used to compare the quality of old versus new insulin charts.

SETTING

University Hospital Graz, Austria.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals (n=237) were questioned regarding structure quality of blank insulin charts.

INTERVENTIONS

A new standardised insulin chart was implemented and healthcare professionals were trained regarding features of this chart. Data from insulinised inpatients were evaluated regarding documentation and treatment quality of filled-in insulin charts (n=108 old insulin charts vs n=100 new insulin charts).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary endpoint was documentation error for insulin administration.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals reported an improved structure quality of the new insulin chart with a Likert type response scale increase in all nine items. Documentation errors for insulin administration (primary endpoint) occurred more often on old than new insulin charts (77% vs 5%, p<0.001). Documentation errors for insulin prescription were more frequent on old insulin charts (100% vs 42%) whereas documentation errors for insulin management rarely occurred in any group (10% vs 8%). Patients of both chart evaluation groups (age: 71±11 vs 71±12 years, 47% vs 42% women, 75% vs 87% type 2 diabetes for old vs new charts, respectively) had a mean of 4±2 good diabetes days. Overall, 26 vs 18 hypoglycaemic episodes (blood glucose (BG) <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL), p=0.28), including 7 vs 2 severe hypoglycaemic episodes (BG <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), p=0.17) were documented on old versus new insulin charts.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a structured documentation form together with training measures for healthcare professionals led to less documentation errors and safe management of glycaemic control in hospitalised patients in a short time follow-up. A rollout at further medical wards is recommended, and sustainability in the long-term has to be demonstrated.

The impact of diabetology consultations on length of stay in hospitalized patients with diabetes

Introduction

Both hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients have been shown to be associated with a longer length of stay, higher readmission rates, and higher rates of morbidity and mortality. With 25%-30% of all hospitalized patients carrying a diagnosis of diabetes, it is important to optimize glycaemic control. Current guidelines for care of inpatients with diabetes now suggest consulting a specialized diabetes team for all patients when possible.

Aim

This study was a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of an inpatient diabetology consult within 48 hours of admission on patients' length of stay.

Methods

All patients admitted to the general medicine service between 2013 and 2018 with a diagnosis of diabetes in their medical record were included, which consisted of 11 477 inpatient stays. We looked at the effect of an inpatient diabetology consultation within the first 48 hours on length of stay, complications and 30-day readmission rates.

Results

We found that patients whose care included a diabetology consult within 48 hours of admission had a statistically significant shorter length of stay by 1.56 days compared to the remainder of the group. There was no difference in complications or 30-day readmission rates between the groups.

Conclusion

Among general medicine patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, timely diabetology consultations reduced patients' length of stay and have the potential to improve their care and lessen the economic impact.

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.

The Association of Mean Plasma Glucose and In hospital Death Proportion: A Retrospective, Cohort Study of 162,169 In-Patient Data

AIMS

To investigate the association between mean plasma glucose and inhospital death proportion.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 162,169 inpatient data in Huashan Hospital from January 2012 to December 2015. Mean plasma glucose was calculated and considered as the average glycemia control during hospitalization. Patients were stratified into six groups according to mean plasma glucose. Nonlinear regression was performed to determine the associations between mean plasma glucose and inhospital death proportion, medical cost, and length of stay. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship of mean plasma glucose and outcomes controlling for confounders including age, gender, and others. Subgroup analyses were performed on basis of whether they were surgical patients, ICU patients, patients with diabetes, or others.

RESULTS

Of the 162,169 hospitalized participants, 53.32% were male and 989 died during hospitalization. Nonlinear regression showed there were positive and significant associations between mean plasma glucose and death proportion, medical cost, and length of stay (P < 0.001 for all). Multivariate logistic regressions showed that, compared with group B, a statistically significant association between mean plasma glucose and predicted outcome was apparent, with the odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of 5.79 (3.51-9.55), 2.85 (2.40-3.38), 6.29 (5.24-7.54), 9.34 (7.51-11.62), and 23.52 (16.64-33.26), for group A, group C, group D, group E, and group F, respectively. There was a U-shaped association between mean plasma glucose and death proportion. Subgroup analyses showed similar associations between mean plasma glucose and death proportion, medical cost, and length of stay as in the whole sample.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a U-curve association between mean plasma glucose with inhospital death proportion. Mean plasma glucose was associated positively with medical cost and length of stay.

Medical software applications for in-hospital insulin therapy: A systematic review

Background

In-hospital hyperglycemia (HH) is frequent and related to higher morbidity and mortality. Despite the benefits of HH treatment, glycemic control is often poor and neglected. The use of health applications to support diagnosis and therapy is now incorporated into medical practice. Medical applications for inpatient glycemic management have potential to standardize this handling by the nonspecialist physician. However, related studies are scarce. We aim to evaluate the efficacy in inpatient glycemic control parameters of medical software applications in non-critical care settings.

Methods

This systematic review on in-hospital insulin applications was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted in triplicate and methodological quality was verified. Specific outcomes of interest were glycemic control efficacy, hypoglycemia risk, length of in-hospital stay, integration with the electronic medical record and healthcare staff acceptance.

Results

Among the 573 articles initially identified and subsequent revision of the references of each one, seven studies involving six applications were eligible for the review. A better glycemic control was reported with the use of most in-hospital insulin applications in the studies evaluated, but there was no mention of the time to reach the glycemic goal. The risk of hypoglycemia was low. Different reasons influenced the varied acceptance of the use of applications among health professionals.

Conclusion

The six applications of inpatient insulin therapy in a non-critical care environment proved to be useful and safe compared to the usual management. Medical apps are tools that can help improve the quality of patient care.

Clinical Prediction Tool To Identify Adults With Type 2 Diabetes at Risk for Persistent Adverse Glycemia in Hospital

OBJECTIVES

Given the high incidence of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in hospital and the lack of prediction tools for this problem, we developed a clinical tool to assist early identification of individuals at risk for persistent adverse glycemia (AG) in hospital.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of 594 consecutive adult inpatients with type 2 diabetes. We identified clinical factors available early in the admission course that were associated with persistent AG (defined as ≥2 days with capillary glucose <4 or >15 mmol/L during admission). A prediction model for persistent AG was constructed using logistic regression and internal validation was performed using a split-sample approach.

RESULTS

Persistent AG occurred in 153 (26%) of inpatients, and was associated with admission dysglycemia (odds ratio [OR], 3.65), glycated hemoglobin ≥8.1% (OR, 5.08), glucose-lowering treatment regimen containing sulfonylurea (OR, 3.50) or insulin (OR, 4.22), glucocorticoid medication treatment (OR, 2.27), Charlson Comorbidity Index score and the number of observed days. An early-identification prediction tool, based on clinical factors reliably available at admission (admission dysglycemia, glycated hemoglobin, glucose-lowering regimen and glucocorticoid treatment), could accurately predict persistent AG (receiver-operating characteristic area under curve = 0.806), and, at the optimal cutoff, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value were 84%, 66% and 53%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical prediction tool based on clinical risk factors available at admission to hospital identified patients at increased risk for persistent AG and could assist early targeted management by inpatient diabetes teams.

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.

Collaboration of Hospital Pharmacists and Hospitalists to Address Glycemic Control of General Medicine Patients: Implementation of a Pilot Inpatient Diabetes Management Program

This study examined the clinical benefits of a collaborative pharmacist-physician inpatient diabetes management program that included daily blood glucose assessment and the recommendation and implementation of American Diabetes Association-recommended insulin regimens.

Implementing simple algorithms to improve glucose and lipid management in people with diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

AIM

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes following acute coronary syndrome. Translating evidence-based recommendations into practice is necessary to improve outcomes. We evaluated whether implementing algorithms to guide inpatient care improved glycaemic control, and increased use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and lipid-lowering medication in a tertiary cardiac unit.

METHOD

A 3-month audit (phase 1) was conducted to evaluate hyperglycaemia and dyslipidaemia management, and medication prescriptions. Consecutive people with diabetes admitted for acute coronary syndrome were prospectively identified. Target blood glucose level was defined as 5-10 mmol/l. A multidisciplinary committee designed and implemented decision-support algorithms plus education. A 3-month post-implementation audit (phase 2) was conducted.

RESULTS

There were 104 people in phase 1 and 101 in phase 2, with similar characteristics [HbA_1c 64 ± 20 mmol/mol vs. 61 ± 21 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 1.8% vs. 7.8 ± 1.9%]. Post implementation, the incidence of blood glucose levels > 10 mmol/l was lower [phase 1: 46.4% vs. phase 2: 31.8%, rate ratio (RR) = 0.77, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.60-0.98; P = 0.031], without a difference in blood glucose levels < 5mmol/l (phase 1: 4.9% vs. phase 2: 4.5%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.70-2.08; P = 0.506). SGLT2 inhibitor prescriptions increased significantly (baseline to discharge: 12.5% to 15.4% vs. 7.9% to 24.8%; P = 0.007) but high-intensity statin prescriptions did not (baseline to discharge: 35.6% to 72.1% vs. 40.6% to 85.1%; P = 0.074). Prescription rates of non-statin lipid-lowering medications were not significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing decision-support algorithms was associated with improved inpatient glycaemic control and increased use of cardioprotective therapies at discharge in people with diabetes and acute coronary syndrome.

User Centered Design to Improve Information Exchange in Diabetes Care Through eHealth : Results from a Small Scale Exploratory Study

Heterogeneity of people with diabetes makes maintaining blood glucose control and achieving therapy adherence a challenge. It is fundamental that patients get actively involved in the management of the disease in their living environments. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the use and acceptance of a self-management system for diabetes developed with User Centered Design Principles in community settings. Persons with diabetes and health professionals were involved the design, development and evaluation of the self-management system; which comprised three iterative cycles: scenario definition, user archetype definition and system development. A comprehensive system was developed integrating modules for the management of blood glucose levels, medication, food intake habits, physical activity, diabetes education and messaging. The system was adapted for two types of principal users (personas): Type 1 Diabetes user and Type 2 Diabetes user. The system was evaluated by assessing the use, the compliance, the attractiveness and perceived usefulness in a multicenter randomized pilot study involving 20 patients and 24 treating professionals for a period of four weeks. Usage and compliance of the co-designed system was compared during the first and the last two weeks of the study, showing a significantly improved behaviour of patients towards the system for each of the modules. This resulted in a successful adoption by both type of personas. Only the medication module showed a significantly different use and compliance (p= 0.01) which can be explained by the different therapeutic course of the two types of diabetes. The involvement of patients to make their own decisions and choices form design stages was key for the adoption of a self-management system for diabetes.

Subcutaneous Insulin Dosing Calculators for Inpatient Glucose Control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to summarize information about insulin dosing software and calculators used as computerized decision support systems or electronic glucose management systems (eGMS). These are used for hospitalized, insulin-treated patients with diabetes. We describe the advantages and disadvantages and the rationale for their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

We compared commercially available insulin dosing software, namely, Glucommander™, EndoTool®, GlucoStabilizer®, and GlucoTab®, in addition to computerized order entry systems that are available in electronic health records. The common feature among these eGMS is their ability to limit occurrences of hypoglycemia while achieving and maintaining patients at target blood glucose level. More research needs to be done examining the efficacy of eGMS in disease-specific states and their benefits and utility in preventing adverse outcomes. Their long-term benefits to health care systems are beginning to emerge in cost-saving benefits and prevention of readmissions.

A MULTICENTER STUDY EVALUATING PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF INPATIENT GLYCEMIC CONTROL AMONG RESIDENT PHYSICIANS: ANALYZING THEMES TO INFORM AND IMPROVE CARE

Objective: In this descriptive study, we evaluated perceptions and knowledge of inpatient glycemic control among resident physicians. Methods: We performed this study at four academic medical centers: the University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Virginia Health System, University of Louisville Health Sciences Center, and Emory University. We designed a questionnaire, and Institutional Review Board approval was granted at each institution prior to study initiation. We then administered the questionnaire to Internal Medicine and Medicine-Pediatric resident physicians. Results: A total of 246 of 438 (56.2%) eligible resident physicians completed the Inpatient Glycemic Control Questionnaire (IGCQ). Most respondents (85.4%) reported feeling comfortable treating and managing inpatient hyperglycemia, and a majority (66.3%) agreed they had received adequate education. Despite self-reported comfort with knowledge, only 51.2% of respondents could identify appropriate glycemic targets in critically ill patients. Only 45.5% correctly identified appropriate inpatient random glycemic target values in noncritically ill patients, and only 34.1% of respondents knew appropriate preprandial glycemic targets in noncritically ill patients. A small majority (54.1%) were able to identify the correct fingerstick glucose value that defines hypoglycemia. System issues were the most commonly cited barrier to successful inpatient glycemic control. Conclusion: Most respondents reported feeling comfortable managing inpatient hyperglycemia but had difficulty identifying appropriate inpatient glycemic target values. Future interventions could utilize the IGCQ as a pre- and postassessment tool and focus on early resident education along with improving system environments to aid in successful inpatient glycemic control. Abbreviations: DM = diabetes mellitus; Emory = Emory University Healthcare; IGC = inpatient glycemic control; IGCQ = Inpatient Glycemic Control Questionnaire; IRB = Institutional Review Board; PGY = postgraduate year; UMMC = University of Mississippi Medical Center; UVA = University of Virginia Health System; UL = University of Louisville Health Sciences Center.

Closing the Loop: Optimizing Diabetes Care in the Hospital by Addressing Dispersed Information in Electronic Health Records and Using Clinical Decision Support

Multiple factors hinder the management of diabetes in hospitals. Amid the demands of practice, health care providers must collect, collate, and analyze multiple data points to optimally interpret glucose control and manage insulin dosing. Such data points are commonly dispersed in different sections of electronic health records (EHR), and the system for data display and physician interaction with the EHR are often poorly conducive to seamless clinical decision making. In this perspective article, we examine challenges in the process of EHR data retrieval, interpretation and decision making, using glucose management as an exemplar. We propose a conceptual, systems-based design for closing the loop between data gathering, analysis and decision making in the management of inpatient diabetes. This concept capitalizes on attributes of the EHR that can enable automated recognition of cases and provision of clinical recommendations.

Construction and preliminary evaluation of the inpatient glycemic control questionnaire (IGCQ): a survey tool assessing perceptions and knowledge of resident physicians

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, with or without diabetes mellitus, is associated with many adverse outcomes. Resident physicians are the primary managers of inpatient glycemic control (IGC) in many academic and community medical centers; however, no validated survey tools related to their perceptions and knowledge of IGC are currently available. As identification of common barriers to successful IGC amongst resident physicians may help foster better educational interventions (ultimately leading to improvements in IGC and patient care), we sought to construct and preliminarily evaluate such a survey tool.

METHODS

We developed the IGC questionnaire (IGCQ) by using previously published but unvalidated survey tools related to physician perspectives on inpatient glycemic control as a framework. We administered the IGCQ to a cohort of resident physicians from the University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Louisville, Emory University, and the University of Virginia. We then used classical test theory and Rasch Partial Credit Model analyses to preliminarily evaluate and revise the IGCQ. The final survey tool contains 16 total items and three answer-choice categories for most items.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-six of 438 (56.2%) eligible resident physicians completed the IGCQ during various phases of development.

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed and preliminarily evaluated the IGCQ, a survey tool that may be useful for future research into resident physician perceptions and knowledge of IGC. Future studies could seek to externally validate the IGCQ and then utilize the survey tool in pre- and post-intervention assessments.

Management of hyperglycaemia in persons with non-insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus who are started on systemic glucocorticoid therapy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

What is the most effective pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control in known type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) without prior insulin treatment and newly started on systemic glucocorticoid therapy?

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and Google for articles from 2002 to July 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We combined search terms relating to DM (patients, >16 years of age), systemic glucocorticoids, glycaemic control, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We screened and evaluated articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.

RESULTS

Eight of 2365 articles met full eligibility criteria. Basal-bolus insulin (BBI) strategy for patients under systemic glucocorticoid therapy was comparatively effective but provided insufficient glucose control, depending on time of day. BBI strategy with long-acting insulin and neutral protamin Hagedorn as basal insulin provided similar overall glycaemic control. Addition of various insulin strategies to standard BBI delivered mixed results. Intermediate-acting insulin (IMI) as additional insulin conferred no clear benefits, and glycaemic control with sliding scale insulin was inferior to BBI or IMI. No studies addressed whether anticipatory or compensatory insulin adjustments are better for glycaemic control.

CONCLUSION

The lack of suitably designed RCTs and observational studies, heterogeneity of interventions, target glucose levels and glucose monitoring, poor control of DM subgroups and low to moderate quality of evidence render identification of optimal pharmacological interventions for glycaemic control and insulin management difficult. Even findings on the widely recommended BBI regimen as intensive insulin therapy for patients with DM on glucocorticoids are inconclusive. High-quality evidence from studies with well-defined DM phenotypes, settings and treatment approaches is needed to determine optimal pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015024739.

Overcoming barriers to diabetes care in the hospital: The power of qualitative observations to promote positive change

AIMS

Despite advocacy by diabetes societies and evidence about how to prevent the deleterious consequences of dysglycemia among hospitalized patients, deficits in clinical practice continue to present barriers to care. The purpose of this study was to examine inpatient rounding practices using a qualitative research lens to assess challenges on the care of hospitalized patients with diabetes and to develop ideas for positive changes in hospital management of diabetes and hyperglycemia.

METHODS

We conducted an interpretive analysis of qualitative observations during medical and surgical inpatient rounds at an academic institution. We coded, analysed, and reported data as thematic findings.

RESULTS

Emerging themes include omissions in discussions during rounds; unpreparedness to address diabetes or dysglycemia during rounds; identifying practice improvement opportunities to address diabetes issues: and recognizing accountability within the routine of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This work guides clinicians and informs systems of practice about improvement strategies that can emerge from within hospital teams. These recommendations emphasize the interconnectedness of practice elements including thoughtful review of glucose status during rounds among patients with and without diabetes; fostering doctors and nurses to work in unison; promoting awareness and integration within and across disciplines; and advocating for better use of existing resources.

Early Intervention for Diabetes in Medical and Surgical Inpatients Decreases Hyperglycemia and Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Cluster Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if early electronic identification and bedside management of inpatients with diabetes improves glycemic control in noncritical care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We investigated a proactive or early intervention model of care (whereby an inpatient diabetes team electronically identified individuals with diabetes and aimed to provide bedside management within 24 h of admission) compared with usual care (a referral-based consultation service). We conducted a cluster randomized trial on eight wards, consisting of a 10-week baseline period (all clusters received usual care) followed by a 12-week active period (clusters randomized to early intervention or usual care). Outcomes were adverse glycemic days (AGDs) (patient-days with glucose <4 or >15 mmol/L [<72 or >270 mg/dL]) and adverse patient outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 1,002 consecutive adult inpatients with diabetes or new hyperglycemia. More patients received specialist diabetes management (92% vs. 15%, P < 0.001) and new insulin treatment (57% vs. 34%, P = 0.001) with early intervention. At the cluster level, incidence of AGDs decreased by 24% from 243 to 186 per 1,000 patient-days in the intervention arm (P < 0.001), with no change in the control arm. At the individual level, adjusted number of AGDs per person decreased from a mean 1.4 (SD 1.6) to 1.0 (0.9) days (-28% change [95% CI -45 to -11], P = 0.001) in the intervention arm but did not change in the control arm (1.8 [2.0] to 1.5 [1.8], -9% change [-25 to 6], P = 0.23). Early intervention reduced overt hyperglycemia (55% decrease in patient-days with mean glucose >15 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and hospital-acquired infections (odds ratio 0.20 [95% CI 0.07-0.58], P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification and management of inpatients with diabetes decreased hyperglycemia and hospital-acquired infections.

Insulin Detemir Versus Insulin Glargine in the Hospital: Do Hypoglycemia Rates Differ?

IN BRIEF Several studies have compared the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir and insulin glargine; however, most have been conducted in the ambulatory care setting. This retrospective cohort study compared hypoglycemia rates between the two basal insulin analogs in hospitalized patients with diabetes. No difference was found between the two insulin cohorts in the proportion of patients who experienced hypoglycemic events.

Role of the Diabetes Educator in Inpatient Diabetes Management

It is the position of American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) that all inpatient interdisciplinary teams include a diabetes educator to lead or support improvement efforts that affect patients hospitalized with diabetes or hyperglycemia. This not only encompasses patient and family education but education of interdisciplinary team members and achievement of diabetes-related organizational quality metrics and performance outcomes.

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.

Impact of an inpatient multidisciplinary glucose control management program

OBJECTIVE

Glycemic control has been increasingly recognized as a critical element in inpatient care, but optimal management of blood glucose in the hospital setting remains challenging. The aims of this study were to describe and evaluate the impact of the implementation of an inpatient multidisciplinary glucose control management program on glucose control in hospitalized patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of medical records and glucose monitoring data obtained by point- of-care testing (POCT) in hospitalized patients before (May 2014) and after (June 2015 and May 2017) the implementation of the program.

RESULTS

We analyzed 6888, 7290, and 7669 POCTs from 389, 545, and 475 patients in May 2014, June 2015, and May 2017, respectively. Hyperglycemia (≥ 180 mg/ dL) occurred in 23.5%, 19.6%, and 19.3% POCTs in May 2014, June 2015, and May/2017, respectively (p < 0.001), while severe hyperglycemia (≥ 300 mg/dL) was observed in 2.5%, 2.2%, and 1.8% of them, respectively (p = 0.003). Hyperglycemia (≥ 180 mg/dL) reduced significantly from May 2014 to June 2015 (16.3%, p < 0.001) and from May 2014 to May 2017 (178%, p < 0.001). No significant changes occurred in hypoglycemic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an inpatient multidisciplinary glucose control management program led to significant reductions in hyperglycemic events. The key elements for this achievement were the development of institutional inpatient glycemic control protocols, establishment of a multidisciplinary team, and continuing educational programs for hospital personnel. Altogether, these actions resulted in improvements in care processes, patient safety, and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CO-ADMINISTRATION OF SITAGLIPTIN WITH METFORMIN IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES AT HOSPITAL DISCHARGE

OBJECTIVE

Few randomized controlled trials have focused on the optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. This multicenter open-label study explored a discharge strategy based on admission hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to guide therapy in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.

METHODS

Patients with HbA1c ≤7% (53 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptin and metformin; patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% (53-75 mmol/mol) and those >9% (75 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptinmetformin with glargine U-100 at 50% or 80% of the hospital daily dose. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c on admission for the entire cohort (N = 253) was 8.70 ± 2.3% and decreased to 7.30 ± 1.5% and 7.30 ± 1.7% at 3 and 6 months ( P<.001). Patients with HbA1c <7% went from 6.3 ± 0.5% to 6.3 ± 0.80% and 6.2 ± 1.0% at 3 and 6 months. Patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% had a reduction from 8.0 ± 0.6% to 7.3 ± 1.1% and 7.3 ± 1.3%, and those with HbA1c >9% from 11.3 ± 1.7% to 8.0 ± 1.8% and 8.0 ± 2.0% at 3 and 6 months after discharge (both P<.001). Clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was observed in 4%, 4%, and 7% among patients with a HbA1c <7%, 7 to 9%, and >9%, while a glucose <40 mg/dL was reported in <1% in all groups.

CONCLUSION

The proposed HbA1c-based hospital discharge algorithm using a combination of sitagliptin-metformin was safe and significantly improved glycemic control after hospital discharge in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.

ABBREVIATIONS

BG = blood glucose; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery for Glycemic Control in Noncritical Care

BACKGROUND

In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6 to 30.0; P<0.001); values above the target range were found in 23.6±16.6% and 49.5±22.8% of the patients, respectively, a difference of 25.9±3.4 percentage points (95% CI, 19.2 to 32.7; P<0.001). The mean glucose level was 154 mg per deciliter (8.5 mmol per liter) in the closed-loop group and 188 mg per deciliter (10.4 mmol per liter) in the control group (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of hypoglycemia (as defined by a sensor glucose measurement of <54 mg per deciliter; P=0.80) or in the amount of insulin that was delivered (median dose, 44.4 U and 40.2 U, respectively; P=0.50). No episode of severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia occurred in either trial group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving noncritical care, the use of an automated, closed-loop insulin-delivery system resulted in significantly better glycemic control than conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, without a higher risk of hypoglycemia. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01774565 .).