Hospital discharge algorithm based on admission HbA1c for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes

Increasing Frequency of Hemoglobin A1c Measurements in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes: A Quality Improvement Project Using Lean Six Sigma

BACKGROUND

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends measuring A1c in all inpatients with diabetes if not performed in the prior three months. Our objective was to determine the impact of utilizing Lean Six Sigma to increase the frequency of A1c measurements in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We evaluated inpatients with diabetes mellitus consecutively admitted in a community hospital between January 2016 and June 2021, excluding those who had an A1c in the electronic health record (EHR) in the previous three months. Lean Six Sigma was utilized to define the extent of the problem and devise solutions. The intervention bundle delivered between November 2017 and February 2018 included (1) provider education on the utility of A1c, (2) more rapid turnaround of A1c results, and (3) an EHR glucose-management tab and insulin order set that included A1c. Hospital encounter and patient-level data were extracted from the EHR via bulk query. Frequency of A1c measurement was compared before (January 2016-November 2017) and after the intervention (March 2018-June 2021) using χ2 analysis.

RESULTS

Demographics did not differ preintervention versus postintervention (mean age [range]: 70.9 [18-104] years, sex: 52.2% male, race: 57.0% white). A1c measurements significantly increased following implementation of the intervention bundle (61.2% vs 74.5%, P < .001). This level was sustained for more than two years following the initial intervention. Patients seen by the diabetes consult service (40.4% vs 51.7%, P < 0.001) and length of stay (mean: 135 hours vs 149 hours, P < 0.001) both increased postintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a novel approach in improving A1c in hospitalized patients. Lean Six Sigma may represent a valuable methodology for community hospitals to improve inpatient diabetes care.

Impact of systematic diabetes screening on peri-operative infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Detection of high glycated hemoglobin (A1c) is associated with worse postoperative outcomes, including predisposition to develop systemic and local infectious events. Diabetes and infectious Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery (DOCS) study is a retrospective case-control study aimed to assess in DM and non-DM cardiac surgery patients if a new screening and management model, consisting of systematic A1c evaluation followed by a specialized DM consult, could reduce perioperative infections and 30-days mortality. Effective July 2021, all patients admitted to the cardiac surgery of IRCCS ISMETT were tested for A1c. According to the new protocol, glucose values of patients with A1c ≥ 6% or with known diabetes were monitored. The diabetes team was activated to manage therapy daily until discharge or provide indications for the diagnostic-therapeutic process. Propensity score was used to match 573 patients managed according to the new protocol (the Screen+ Group) to 573 patients admitted before July 2021 and subjected to the traditional management (Screen-). Perioperative prevalence of infections from any cause, including surgical wound infections (SWI), was significantly lower in the Screen+ as compared with the Screen- matched patients (66 [11%] vs. 103 [18%] p = 0.003). No significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality. A1c analysis identified undiagnosed DM in 12% of patients without known metabolic conditions. In a population of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, systematic A1c evaluation at admission followed by specialist DM management reduces perioperative infectious complications, including SWI. Furthermore, A1c screening for patients undergoing cardiac surgery unmasks unknown DM and enhances risk stratification.

Pre-hospital glycemia as a biomarker for in-hospital all-cause mortality in diabetic patients - a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) presents a significant healthcare challenge, with considerable economic ramifications. While blood glucose management and long-term metabolic target setting for home care and outpatient treatment follow established procedures, the approach for short-term targets during hospitalization varies due to a lack of clinical consensus. Our study aims to elucidate the impact of pre-hospitalization and intra-hospitalization glycemic indexes on in-hospital survival rates in individuals with T2DM, addressing this notable gap in the current literature.

METHODS

In this pilot study involving 120 hospitalized diabetic patients, we used advanced machine learning and classical statistical methods to identify variables for predicting hospitalization outcomes. We first developed a 30-day mortality risk classifier leveraging AdaBoost-FAS, a state-of-the-art ensemble machine learning method for tabular data. We then analyzed the feature relevance to identify the key predictive variables among the glycemic and routine clinical variables the model bases its predictions on. Next, we conducted detailed statistical analyses to shed light on the relationship between such variables and mortality risk. Finally, based on such analyses, we introduced a novel index, the ratio of intra-hospital glycemic variability to pre-hospitalization glycemic mean, to better characterize and stratify the diabetic population.

RESULTS

Our findings underscore the importance of personalized approaches to glycemic management during hospitalization. The introduced index, alongside advanced predictive modeling, provides valuable insights for optimizing patient care. In particular, together with in-hospital glycemic variability, it is able to discriminate between patients with higher and lower mortality rates, highlighting the importance of tightly controlling not only pre-hospital but also in-hospital glycemic levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the pilot nature and modest sample size, this study marks the beginning of exploration into personalized glycemic control for hospitalized patients with T2DM. Pre-hospital blood glucose levels and related variables derived from it can serve as biomarkers for all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

Developing a Diabetes Discharge Order Set for Patients With Diabetes on Insulin

BACKGROUND

Insulin, a high-risk medication, is prone to prescribing errors. Patients with diabetes experience higher hospitalization rates and extended hospital stays. Prescription errors, such as missing orders, inappropriate insulin type, missing instructions, and lack of appropriate intensification of insulin regimens are common issues. This project explored the use of system-based interventions and educational tools to minimize errors and improve the quality of insulin discharge regimens.

METHODS

A needs assessment and baseline chart review were conducted before adapting a diabetes order set obtained from the University of California, San Diego. Subsequent beta testing and broader implementation were followed by repeat chart reviews to assess the impact.

RESULTS

Providers strongly desired an insulin discharge order set, with 98% of those surveyed expressing this preference. Those who were high utilizers of the order set showed increased rates of ordering all supplies (55%), compared with pre-intervention rates (27%). However, no change was observed in the practice of intensifying insulin regimens in patients with uncontrolled diabetes upon discharge.

DISCUSSION

Insulin prescribing is prone to error. A diabetes discharge order set may improve the percentage of patients who receive necessary insulin supplies at discharge and provide educational resources to encourage appropriate insulin regimens at hospital discharge.

Medical education on hospital hyperglycemia improving knowledge and outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the effects of medical education on hospital hyperglycemia on physician's technical knowledge and the quality of medical prescriptions, patient care, and clinical outcomes.

Subjects and methods

The intervention included online classes and practical consultations provided by an endocrinologist to medical preceptors and residents of the Department of Internal Medicine. A pretest and a post-test (0 to 10 points) were applied before and after the intervention and patients medical records were reviewed before and after the intervention. The outcomes were improvement in medical knowledge, in the quality of prescriptions for patients in the clinical area, and clinical outcomes.

Results

The global mean of correct answers improved with the intervention [before: 6.9 points (±1.7) versus after the intervention: 8.8 points (±1.5) (p < 0.001)]. The number of patients who did not have at least one blood glucose assessment during the entire hospitalization for acute illness decreased from 12.6% before to 2.6% (p < 0.001) after the intervention. There was also a significant reduction in hospital hypoglycemia rates (p < 0.026). The use of sliding-scale insulin as the main treatment was quite low before and after the intervention (2.2% and 0%). After 6 months, medical knowledge did not show significant reduction.

Conclusion

Medical education on hospital hyperglycemia can improve medical knowledge and clinical outcomes for patients. The improvement in medical knowledge was maintained after 6 months.

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

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

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors Upon Hospital Discharge of People With Diabetes: Promise, Barriers, and Opportunity

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have increasingly been used in ambulatory and inpatient or hospital settings to improve glycemic outcomes for people with diabetes. Given their capacity to aid individuals in avoiding hypo- and hyperglycemia, they may also be useful when transitioning from hospital to home by reducing rates of hospital readmissions and emergency department visits. Several types of barriers presently exist that make the deployment of CGMs at the time of hospital discharge problematic, including (1) regulatory, (2) behavioral, (3) logistical, (4) technical, (5) staffing, and (6) systemic issues. In this commentary, we review the literature, discuss these barriers, and propose possible solutions to facilitate the use of CGMs in people with diabetes at the time of hospital discharge.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Hospital: The Diabetes Technology Society Hospital Meeting Report 2023

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by the Diabetes Technology Society on April 14 and 15, 2023, with the goal of reviewing the progress made in the hospital use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Meeting topics included (1) Nursing Issues, Protocols, Order Sets, and Staff Education for Using CGMs, (2) Implementing CGM Programs for Use in the Wards, (3) Quality Metrics and Financial Implications of CGMs in the Hospital, (4) CGMs in the Critical Care Setting, (5) Special Situations: Labor/Delivery and Hemodialysis, (6) Research Session on CGMs in the Hospital, (7) Starting a CGM on Hospitalized Patients, (8) Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in the Hospital, (9) CGMs in Children, (10) Data Integration of CGMs for Inpatient Use and Telemetry, (11) Accuracy of CGMs/Comparison with Point-of-care Blood Glucose Testing, and (12) Discharge Planning with CGMs. Outcome data as well as shared collective real-life experiences were reviewed, and expert recommendations for CGM implementation were formulated.

The impact of pharmacist interventions, follow-up frequency and default on glycemic control in Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic program: a multicenter study in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist's involvement in optimizing medication adherence among diabetic patients has been implemented for over a decade. Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (DMTAC) was set up to educate diabetic patients, monitor treatment outcomes, and manage drug-related problems. While evidence shows that pharmacist-led DMTAC was effective in reducing HbA1c, there was limited data regarding the impact of different intervention types and default to follow-up on glycemic control.

AIM

To assess the impact DMTAC on glycemic control and the difference in glycemic control between hospital and health clinic settings as well as defaulter and non-defaulter. In addition, the impact of pharmacist's interventions, DMTAC follow-up frequencies, and duration of diabetes on glycemic control were also determined.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among diabetes patients under DMTAC care between January 2019 and June 2020 in five hospitals and 23 primary health clinics. Patients' demographics data, treatment regimens, frequencies of DMTAC visits, defaulter (absent from DMTAC visits) and types of pharmacists' intervention were retrieved from patients' medical records and electronic database. HbA1c was collected at baseline, 4-6 months (post-1), and 8-12 months (post-2).

RESULTS

We included 956 patients, of which 60% were females with a median age of 58.0 (IQR: 5.0) years. Overall, the HbA1c reduced significantly from baseline (median: 10.2, IQR: 3.0) to post-1 (median: 8.8, IQR: 2.7) and post-2 (median: 8.3, IQR: 2.6%) (p < 0.001). There were 4317 pharmacists' interventions performed, with the majority being dosage adjustment (n = 2407, 55.8%), followed by lab investigations (849, 19.7%), drugs addition (653, 15.1%), drugs discontinuation (408, 9.5%). Patients treated in hospitals received significantly more interventions than those treated in primary health clinics (p < 0.001). We observed significantly less reduction in HbA1c in DMTAC follow-up defaulters than non-defaulters after 1 year (- 1.02% vs. - 2.14%, p = 0.001). Frequencies of DMTAC visits (b: 0.19, CI: 0.079-0.302, p = 0.001), number of dosage adjustments (b: 0.83, CI: 0.015-0.151, p = 0.018) and number of additional drugs recommended (b: 0.37, CI: 0.049-0.691, p = 0.024) had positive impact on glycemic control whereas duration of diabetes (b: - 0.0302, CI: - 0.0507, - 0.007, p = 0.011) had negative impact.

CONCLUSION

Glycemic control improved significantly and sustained up to one year among patients in pharmacists-led DMTAC. However, DMTAC defaulters experienced poorer glycemic control. Considering more frequent visits and targeted interventions by pharmacists at DMTAC resulted in improved HbA1c control, these strategies should be taken into account for future program planning.

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.

Instituting a Successful Discharge Plan for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Solutions

Achieving target inpatient glycemic management outcomes has been shown to influence important clinical outcomes such as hospital length of stay and readmission rates. However, arguably the most profound, lasting impact of inpatient diabetes management is achieved at the time of discharge-namely reconciling and prescribing the right medications and making referrals for follow-up. Discharge planning offers a unique opportunity to break through therapeutic inertia, offer diabetes self-management education, and institute an individualized treatment plan that prepares the patient for discharge and promotes self-care and engagement. However, the path to a successful discharge plan can be fraught with potential pitfalls for clinicians, including lack of knowledge and experience with newer diabetes medications, costs, concerns over insurance coverage, and lack of time and resources. This article presents an algorithm to assist clinicians in selecting discharge regimens that maximize benefits and reduce barriers to self-care for patients and a framework for creating an interdisciplinary hospital diabetes discharge program.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Electronic Health Record-Based Decision-Making Support in Inpatient Diabetes Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses ways in which the electronic health record (EHR) can offer clinical decision support (CDS) tools for management of inpatient diabetes and hyperglycemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of electronic order sets can help providers order comprehensive basal bolus insulin regimens that are consistent with current guidelines. Order sets have been shown to reduce insulin errors and hypoglycemia rates. They can also help set glycemic targets, give hemoglobin A1C reminders, guide weight-based dosing, and match insulin regimen to nutritional profile. Glycemic management dashboards allow multiple variables affecting blood glucose to be shown in a single view, which allows for efficient evaluation of glucose trends and adjustment of insulin regimen. With the use glycemic management dashboards, active surveillance and remote management also become feasible. Hypoglycemia prevention and management are another part of inpatient diabetes management that is enhanced by EHR CDS tools. Furthermore, diagnosis and management of diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia hyperosmolar state are improved with the aid of EHR CDS tools. The use of EHR CDS tools helps improve the care of patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia in the inpatient hospital setting.

Hospital Diabetes Meeting 2022

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by Diabetes Technology Society on April 1 and April 2, 2022. This meeting brought together experts in diabetes technology to discuss various new developments in the field of managing diabetes in hospitalized patients. Meeting topics included (1) digital health and the hospital, (2) blood glucose targets, (3) software for inpatient diabetes, (4) surgery, (5) transitions, (6) coronavirus disease and diabetes in the hospital, (7) drugs for diabetes, (8) continuous glucose monitoring, (9) quality improvement, (10) diabetes care and educatinon, and (11) uniting people, process, and technology to achieve optimal glycemic management. This meeting covered new technology that will enable better care of people with diabetes if they are hospitalized.

Blood glucose monitoring during hospitalisation: Advanced practice nurse and semi-automated insulin prescription tools

INTRODUCTION

Hyperglycemia is very common in hospitalized patients and is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AIMS

We implemented a clinical and educational program to improve the overall glycemic control during hospital admission, and, in patients with HbA_1c > 8%, to improve their metabolic control after hospital admission.

METHODS

Non-critical patients admitted to cardiovascular areas between October-2017 and February-2019. The program was led by an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) and included a semiautomated insulin prescription tool. Program in 3 phases: 1) observation of routine practice, 2) implementation, and 3) follow-up after discharge.

RESULTS

During the implementation phase the availability of HbA1c increased from 42 to 81%, and the ANP directly intervened in 73/685 patients (11%), facilitating treatment progression at discharge in 48% (de novo insulin in 36%). One-year after discharge, HbA1c in patients who were admitted during the observation phase with HbA1c > 8% (n = 101) was higher than similar patients admitted during implementation phase (8,6 ± 1,5 vs. 7,3 ± 1,2%, respectively, p < 0,001). We evaluated 47710 point of care capillary blood glucose (POC-glucose) in two 9 months periods (one before, one during the program) in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery wards. POC-glucose ≥250 mg/dl (pre vs. during: cardiology 10,7 vs. 8,4%, and surgery 7,4 vs. 4,5%, both p < 0,05) and <70 mg/dl (2,3 vs. 0,8% y 1,5 vs 1%, p < 0,05), respectively, improved during the program.

CONCLUSIONS

The program allowed improving inpatient glycemic control, detect patients with poor glycemic control, and optimize metabolic control 1-year after discharge.

The Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Pilot Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention Designed to Reduce Readmission Risk of Adults with Diabetes

Hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30-day readmission) is a high-priority quality measure and cost target. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program on readmission risk in high-risk adults with diabetes. This was a non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared usual care (UC) to DiaTOHC at a safety-net hospital. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission. Between 16 October 2017 and 30 May 2019, 93 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 14 (31.1%) of 45 DiaTOHC subjects and 15 (32.6%) of 46 UC subjects had a 30-day readmission, while 35.6% DiaTOHC and 39.1% UC subjects had a 30-day readmission or ED visit. The Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.33 (0.13−0.79) 95%CI. At least 93% of subjects were satisfied with key intervention components. Among the 69 subjects with baseline HbA1c >7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 30-day readmission rates were 23.5% (DiaTOHC) and 31.4% (UC) and composite 30-day readmission/ED visit rates were 26.5% (DiaTOHC) and 40.0% (UC). In this subgroup, the Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.21 (0.08−0.58) 95%CI. The DiaTOHC Program may be feasible and may decrease combined 30-day readmission/ED visit risk as well as healthcare costs among patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% (53 mmol/mol).

Internal medicine physician embedded in an orthopedic service in a level 1 hospital: clinical impact

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of an internist physician specialized in diabetes, appointed as an in-house physician in the orthopedic wards, on improving clinical outcomes and in particular 30-day mortality.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of patients hospitalized more than 24 h in the orthopedic service. The analyses included a comparative analysis between the pre- and post-intervention time periods and an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis, which were conducted in stratification to three populations: whole population, patients with at least one chronic disease and/or older than 75 years of age and patients diagnosed with diabetes. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality following the hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 11,546 patients were included in the study, of which 19% (2212) were hospitalized in the post intervention period. Although in the comparative analysis there was no significant change in 30-day mortality, in the ITS there was a decrease in the mortality trend during the post intervention period in the entire and chronic disease/elderly populations, compared to no change during the pre-intervention period: a post-intervention slope of - 0.14(p value < 0.001) and  - 0.11(p value = 0.03), respectively. Additionally, we found decrease in length of stay, increase in transfers to the internal medicine department with a negative trend, increase in HbA1c testing during the hospitalization and changes in diabetes drugs administration.

CONCLUSION

The presence of an internist in the orthopedic wards is associated with health care improvement; decrease in the 30-day mortality trend, decrease in length of stay, increase in HbA1c testing during the hospitalization and an increase in diabetes drugs administration.

Managing Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery to Improve Glycemic Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Persons with diabetes are more likely to require orthopedic surgery and are at an increased risk of developing postoperative complications. Recognizing the impact of diabetes on musculoskeletal health provides an opportunity to educate healthcare professionals in standardizing the perioperative approach of persons with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevated hemoglobin A1C, fructosamine, and blood glucose levels have been associated with increased risk for complications in the orthopedic population. These risks can be mitigated by the early identification and optimization of these patients in the perioperative period. Intraoperative and postoperative glycemic management should support efforts to maintain glucose at safe levels while avoiding hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. This paper considers factors surrounding diabetes care in the orthopedic surgical patient. Perioperative care discussed includes optimization, hospitalization to discharge, and special considerations such as steroids and diabetes wearable technology. Hospitals should consider these strategies towards enhancing the care of persons with diabetes requiring musculoskeletal care.

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.

Liraglutide hospital discharge trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of liraglutide versus insulin glargine for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes after hospital discharge

AIM

To compare a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin at hospital discharge in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7%-10% (53-86 mol/mol) were randomized to liraglutide (n = 136) or insulin glargine (n = 137) at hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA1c at 12 and 26 weeks. Secondary endpoints included hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

RESULTS

The between-group difference in HbA1c at 12 weeks and 26 weeks was -0.28% (95% CI -0.64, 0.09), and at 26 weeks it was -0.55%, (95% CI -1.01, -0.09) in favour of liraglutide. Liraglutide treatment resulted in a lower frequency of hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (13% vs 23%; P = 0.04), but there was no difference in the rate of clinically significant hypoglycaemia <3.0 mmol/L. Compared to insulin glargine, liraglutide treatment was associated with greater weight loss at 26 weeks (-4.7 ± 7.7 kg vs -0.6 ± 11.5 kg; P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia was 48% versus 33% (P = 0.05) at 12 weeks and 45% versus 33% (P = 0.14) at 26 weeks in liraglutide versus insulin glargine. The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia and no weight gain was higher with liraglutide at 12 (41% vs 24%, P = 0.005) and 26 weeks (39% vs 22%; P = 0.014). The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with liraglutide than with insulin glargine (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to insulin glargine, treatment with liraglutide at hospital discharge resulted in better glycaemic control and greater weight loss, but increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

Patient Understanding of Discharge Instructions for Home Diabetes Self-Management and Risk for Hospital Readmission and Emergency Department Visits

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to examine the patient comprehension of diabetes self-management instructions provided at hospital discharge as an associated risk of readmission.

METHODS

Noncritically ill patients with diabetes completed patient comprehension questionnaires (PCQ) within 48 hours of discharge. PCQ scores were compared among patients with and without readmission or emergency department (ED) visits at 30 and 90 days. Glycemic measures 48 hours preceding discharge were investigated. Diabetes Early Readmission Risk Indicators (DERRIs) were calculated for each patient.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients who completed the PCQ, scores were similar among those with 30-day (n = 31) and 90-day (n = 54) readmission compared with no readmission (n = 72) (79.9 ± 14.4 vs 80.4 ± 15.6 vs 82.3 ± 16.4, respectively) or ED visits. Clarification of discharge information was provided for 47 patients. PCQ scores of 100% were achieved in 14% of those with and 86% without readmission at 30 days (P = .108). Of predischarge glycemic measures, glycemic variability was negatively associated with PCQ scores (P = .035). DERRIs were significantly higher among patients readmitted at 90 days but not 30 days.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate similar PCQ scores between patients with and those without readmission or ED visits despite the need for corrective information in many patients. Measures of glycemic variability were associated with PCQ scores but not readmission risk. This study validates DERRI as a predictor for readmission at 90 days.

Suggested Canadian Standards for Perioperative/Periprocedure Glycemic Management in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this quality initiative was to develop consensus standards for glycemic management of patients with diabetes who undergo surgical procedures in Canada.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to gather broad stakeholder input and arrive at a consensus for perioperative/periprocedure diabetes management.

RESULTS

Glycemic management standards were developed for the following categories: Organization of Care; Preoperative Assessment; Immediate Preoperative and Intraoperative; Postanesthesia Care Unit or Recovery Room; Postoperative Period; and Transition to Outpatient Care.

CONCLUSIONS

It is anticipated these standards will serve as a basis to develop clinical tools to support the recommendations.

Management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia in the hospital

Hyperglycaemia in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital is associated with a substantial increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Professional societies have recommended insulin therapy as the cornerstone of inpatient pharmacological management. Intravenous insulin therapy is the treatment of choice in the critical care setting. In non-intensive care settings, several insulin protocols have been proposed to manage patients with hyperglycaemia; however, meta-analyses comparing different treatment regimens have not clearly endorsed the benefits of any particular strategy. Clinical guidelines recommend stopping oral antidiabetes drugs during hospitalisation; however, in some countries continuation of oral antidiabetes drugs is commonplace in some patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital, and findings from clinical trials have suggested that non-insulin drugs, alone or in combination with basal insulin, can be used to achieve appropriate glycaemic control in selected populations. Advances in diabetes technology are revolutionising day-to-day diabetes care and work is ongoing to implement these technologies (ie, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery) for inpatient care. Additionally, transformations in care have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote inpatient diabetes management-research is needed to assess the effects of such adaptations.

Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Transitions of Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The transition of diabetes care from home to hospital, within the hospital, and upon discharge is fraught with gaps that can adversely affect patient safety and length of stay. We aimed to highlight the variability in care during these transitions and point out areas where research is needed.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed with a combination of search terms that pertained to diabetes, hyperglycemia, hospitalization, locations in the hospital, discharge to home or a nursing facility, and diabetes medications. Studies with at least 50 patients that were written in the English language were included.

RESULTS

With the exception of transitioning from intravenous insulin infusion to subcutaneous insulin and perhaps admission to the regular floors, few studies pointedly focused on transitions of care, leading us to extrapolate recommendations based on data from disparate areas of care in the hospital. There is evidence at every stage of care, starting from the entry into the hospital and ending with discharge home or to a facility, that patients benefit from having protocols in place guiding overall care.

CONCLUSION

Pockets of care exist in hospitals where methods of effective diabetes management have been studied and implemented. However, there is no sustained continuum of care. Protocols and care teams that follow patients from one physical location to the other may result in improved clinical outcomes during and following a hospital stay.

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.

Considerations for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients During Hospitalization: A Narrative Review of What We Need to Know in the Age of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs

With the availability of second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin degludec (100 and 200 units/ml [degludec]) and insulin glargine 300 units/ml (glargine U300), clinicians now have long-acting, efficacious treatment options with stable pharmacokinetic profiles and associated low risks of hypoglycemia that may be desirable for many patients with type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence on glycemic control in hospitalized patients and review the pharmacokinetic properties of degludec and glargine U300 in relation to the challenges these may pose during the hospitalization of patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving outpatient regimens involving these newer insulins. Their increased use in clinical practice requires that hospital healthcare professionals (HCPs) have appropriate protocols to transfer patients from these second-generation insulins to formulary insulin on admission, and ensure the safe discharge of patients and transition back to degludec or glargine U300. However, there is no guidance available on this. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we identify key issues to consider when arranging hospital care of such patients. We also summarize the limited available evidence on the potential utility of these second-generation basal insulin analogs in the non-critical inpatient setting and identify avenues for future research. To address current knowledge gaps, it is important that HCPs are educated about the differences between standard formulary insulins and second-generation insulins, and the importance of clear communication during patient transitions.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: results of the phase IV COBALTA trial

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in insufficiently controlled people with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

COBALTA (for its acronym in Spanish, COntrol Basal durante la hospitalizacion y al ALTA) was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV trial including 112 evaluable inpatients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8%-10%) with basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic drugs. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus-correction insulin regimen with Gla-300 during the hospitalization and with Gla-300 and/or non-insulin antidiabetics for 6 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was the HbA1c change from baseline to month 6 postdischarge.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels decreased from 8.8%±0.6% at baseline to 7.2%±1.1% at month 6 postdischarge (p<0.001, mean change 1.6%±1.1%). All 7-point blood glucose levels decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p≤0.001, mean changes from 25.1±66.6 to 63.0±85.4 mg/dL). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p<0.001), month 3 (p<0.001) and month 6 (p<0.001) postdischarge (mean changes 51.5±90.9, 68.2±96.0 and 77.6±86.4 mg/dL, respectively). Satisfaction was high and hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia perception was low according to the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire at month 6 postdischarge. The incidence of confirmed (glucose<70 mg/dL)/severe hypoglycemia was 25.0% during hospitalization and 59.1% 6 months after discharge. No safety concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient and intensification therapy at discharge with Gla-300 improved significantly glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with other basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic medication, with high treatment satisfaction. Gla-300 could therefore be a treatment choice for hospital and postdischarge diabetes management.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Challenges and Strategies for Inpatient Diabetes Management in Older Adults

Adults older than 65 years of age are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Aging is also one of the most important risk factors for diabetes, and about one-third of all individuals with diabetes are in this age-group. Older people with diabetes are more likely to have comorbidities such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and cognitive impairment, which lead to higher rates of hospital admissions compared with individuals without diabetes. Professional organizations have recommended patient-centric individualized glycemic reduction approaches, with an emphasis on potential harms of intensive glycemic control and overtreatment in older adults. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of diabetes management in the inpatient setting regardless of patients' age; however, there is uncertainty about optimal glycemic targets during the hospital stay. Increasing evidence supports selective use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, alone or in combination with low-dose basal insulin, in older noncritically ill patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. This article reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and monitoring of, and the available treatment strategies for, diabetes among elderly patients in the inpatient setting.

Patterns and predictors of antihyperglycemic intensification at hospital discharge for type 2 diabetic patients not on home insulin

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent condition among hospitalized patients and the inpatient setting presents an opportunity for providers to review and adjust antihyperglycemic medications. We sought to describe practice patterns and predictors of antihyperglycemic intensification (AHI) at hospital discharge for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients not on home insulin.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with T2DM receiving either non-insulin antihyperglycemic (NIA) or no antihyperglycemic medications prior to admission who were hospitalized within two hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System from December 2015 to September 2016. Mean hospital glucose values and observed vs. individualized target hemoglobin A1C values (based on risk of mortality score) were used to define an indication for AHI. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of AHI.

RESULTS

A total of 554 discharges of 475 unique patients were included. An indication for AHI was present in 104 (18.8%) of discharges, and AHI occurred in 30 (28.8%) of these discharges. Higher mean admission BG values and A1C, fewer pre-admission antihyperglycemic agents, involvement of the diabetes service, and admitting service were associated with AHI, while no association was observed with age, sex, race, risk of mortality and severity of illness scores, or length of stay. AHI was not associated with 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

An indication for AHI occurs relatively infrequently among hospitalized patients, but when present, AHI occurs in approximately 1 in 3 discharges. AHI appears to be related largely to the degree of hyperglycemia, and diabetes service involvement. Further studies are needed to understand the implications of AHI at hospital discharge on short and long-term outcomes in this population.

Association of glucose variability at the last day of hospitalization with 30-day readmission in adults with diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether increased glucose variability (GV) during the last day of inpatient stay is associated with increased risk of 30-day readmission in patients with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A comprehensive list of clinical, pharmacy and utilization files were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Data Warehouse to create a nationwide cohort including 1 042 150 admissions of patients with diabetes over a 14-year study observation period. Point-of-care glucose values during the last 24 hours of hospitalization were extracted to calculate GV (measured as SD and coefficient of variation (CV)). Admissions were divided into 10 categories defined by progressively increasing SD and CV. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission rate, adjusted for multiple covariates including demographics, comorbidities and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

As GV increased, there was an overall increase in the 30-day readmission rate ratio. In the fully adjusted model, admissions with CV in the 5th-10th CV categories and admissions with SD in the 4th-10th categories had a statistically significant progressive increase in 30-day readmission rates, compared with admissions in the 1st (lowest) CV and SD categories. Admissions with the greatest CV and SD values (10th category) had the highest risk for readmission (rate ratio (RR): 1.08 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.10), p<0.0001 and RR: 1.11 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.14), p<0.0001 for CV and SD, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes who exhibited higher degrees of GV on the final day of hospitalization had higher rates of 30-day readmission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03508934, NCT03877068.

Discharge pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetic inpatients at two hospitals of different tiers in Zhejiang Province, China

Objects

To look into the discharge pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetics admitted to two general hospitals of different ranks and inspect current real-world management of discharge pharmacology and its related factors.

Methods

Type 2 diabetics admitted to a tertiary general hospital (Ningbo Medical Treatment Centre Lihuili Hospital, LHLH) or a secondary general hospital (Simen Hospital, SMH) for intensification of their anti-diabetics were included for retrospective analysis. Patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, admission diabetes therapy and discharge diabetes pharmacology were analyzed and compared among patients in each hospital as well as between two hospitals.

Results

391 patients from LHLH and 164 patients from SMH were included for analyzing. Compared with patients from LHLH, patients from SMH were older, more illiterate and had higher HbA1c concentrations. While there was a nearly equal split of oral anti-diabetes drugs (OADs)-only and Insulin treatment in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy, insulin treatment dominated SMH’s. Basal-and-bolus insulin assumed the majority of SMH’s insulin regimens but only accounted for less than 20% of LHLH’s. The principal discrepancy in OADs-only treatment existed in the utilization of newer classes of OADs. Cost and body mass index (BMI) were the main differentiating factors among OADs-only treatments while duration, BMI and HbA1c differ among insulin treatments at LHLH. Clinical characteristics didn’t significantly differ among OADs-only treatments and HbA1c was the only differentiating factor among insulin treatments at SMH. Overall, hospital, duration, HbA1c, and vascular diseases were main factors that affect discharge pharmacology.

Conclusions

Great disparities exist in the discharge pharmacotherapy at two hospitals. Diabetes management is mostly glucose-oriented at SMH while multifactorial considerations were reflected in LHLH’s discharge pharmacotherapy. Besides differences in patients’ demographics, medication availability and diagnosis of early-stage vascular complications, lack of practical algorithm for discharge management in T2DM may be the underlying deficiency and a key part for future improvement.

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.

Hospital Outcomes of Adult Diabetic Patients by Glycated Hemoglobin Level in Nonsurgical Pathology in a High-Complexity Institution

Recent evidence supports the relationship between in-hospital hyperglycemia and inpatient complications. Besides, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) can predict the clinical course of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) during hospital stays. This study aimed to assess the relationship between HbA1c levels and inpatient outcomes. Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with age greater than 18 years, hospital length of stay greater than 24 hours, and one HbA1c report during their in-hospital management were included. All the electronic care records of patients admitted at the Clinical Versalles, a high-volume institution, in Manizales-Colombia were revised. The following variables were considered: hospital length of stay, diagnoses at the arrival, complications, capillary glucose levels, and treatment at discharge. Variables were categorized by HbA1c levels: group 1 = ⩽ 7%, group 2 = 7.01% to 8.5%, group 3 = 8.51% to ⩽10% and group 4 = >10%. There were a total of 232 patients. Average age was 69.7 years, mean HbA1c was 7.19 ± 2.03, average body mass index (BMI) was 28.8 ± 5.6. About HbA1c, 146 (62.9%) had ⩽7.5%. The most frequent admission diagnosis was by cardiovascular diseases. Average hospitalization was 7.5 ± 5.7 days. There was no relationship between the levels of HbA1c with hospital stays, inpatient complications, or readmissions. Infections and respiratory diseases were more common conditions related to higher HbA1c levels, especially when these were 8.5%. In diabetic patients with nonsurgical diseases and high HbA1c levels, there was no association with clinical complications, length of stay, readmissions, or in-hospital mortality, but changes in treatment at discharge were observed.

Inpatient Management of T2DM and Hyperglycemia in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide a summary of the evaluation and treatment of older adults (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes and/or hyperglycemia in the hospital.

RECENT FINDINGS

Caring for these older adults requires special considerations. Diabetes is a risk factor for hospitalization and hyperglycemia in the hospital is associated with increased complications and mortality. Treatment plans for hospitalized older adults with diabetes should include a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This team-based approach aims to develop an individualized care plan, with consideration of the patients' personal goals, comorbidities, functional status, life expectancy, and hypoglycemia risk. Studies from hospitalized middle age and older adults with hyperglycemia can help guide diabetes treatment goals and management in older adults. Further studies, examining both glucose targets and care management assessments and treatment plan specifically targeting older adults in the hospital setting, are needed.

Association of Glucose Concentrations at Hospital Discharge With Readmissions and Mortality: A Nationwide Cohort Study

CONTEXT

Low blood glucose concentrations during the discharge day may affect 30-day readmission and posthospital discharge mortality rates.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether patients with diabetes and low glucose values during the last day of hospitalization are at increased risk of readmission or mortality.

DESIGN AND OUTCOMES

Minimum point of care glucose values were collected during the last 24 hours of hospitalization. We used adjusted rates of 30-day readmission rate, 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality rates, and combined 30-day readmission/mortality rate to identify minimum glucose thresholds above which patients can be safely discharged.

PATIENTS AND SETTING

Nationwide cohort study including 843,978 admissions of patients with diabetes at the Veteran Affairs hospitals 14 years.

RESULTS

The rate ratios (RRs) increased progressively for all five outcomes as the minimum glucose concentrations progressively decreased below the 90 to 99 mg/dL category, compared with the 100 to 109 mg/dL category: 30-day readmission RR, 1.01 to 1.45; 30-day readmission/mortality RR, 1.01 to 1.71; 30-day mortality RR, 0.99 to 5.82; 90-day mortality RR, 1.01 to 2.40; 180-day mortality RR, 1.03 to 1.91. Patients with diabetes experienced greater 30-day readmission rates, 30-, 90- and 180-day postdischarge mortality rates, and higher combined 30-day readmission/mortality rates, with glucose levels <92.9 mg/dL, <45.2 mg/dL, 65.8 mg/dL, 67.3 mg/dL, and <87.2 mg/dL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with diabetes who had hypoglycemia or near-normal glucose values during the last day of hospitalization had higher rates of 30-day readmission and postdischarge mortality.

Treatment of Diabetes in Older Adults: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes, particularly type 2, is becoming more prevalent in the general population, especially in individuals over the age of 65 years. The underlying pathophysiology of the disease in these patients is exacerbated by the direct effects of aging on metabolic regulation. Similarly, aging effects interact with diabetes to accelerate the progression of many common diabetes complications. Each section in this guideline covers all aspects of the etiology and available evidence, primarily from controlled trials, on therapeutic options and outcomes in this population. The goal is to give guidance to practicing health care providers that will benefit patients with diabetes (both type 1 and type 2), paying particular attention to avoiding unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.

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.

DETERMINING INSULIN DOSE AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE IN A HIGH-RISK POPULATION: IS THERE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of the insulin dose prescribed at hospital discharge in a high-risk population and assess patient characteristics that influence insulin dose requirement in the immediate postdischarge period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at Parkland Health System. We included all patients admitted to a medical floor who received an insulin prescription at discharge and had at least one follow-up visit within 6 months of discharge. All data were extracted by a detailed manual review of each electronic medical record.

RESULTS

At the postdischarge follow-up (N = 797, median 33 days from discharge), 60% of patients required an insulin dose adjustment; 47% of the patients required a dose decrease. Significant predictors of a decrease insulin requirement postdischarge included (multiple regression beta coefficient [95% confidence interval]): newly diagnosed diabetes, -12.7 (-17.7, -7.7); ketosis-prone diabetes, -8.4 (-15, -1.8); glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), <10% (86 mmol/mol) -7.0 (-11.4, -2.6); discharge insulin total daily dose, -5.3 (-9.3, -1.3); and metformin prescription, -4.9 (-8.4, -1.3).

CONCLUSION

An insulin dose adjustment (most commonly a decrease) was necessary shortly after discharge in more than half of our patients. A better model to estimate insulin dose at discharge is needed along with short-term follow-up after discharge for insulin titration. A pre-emptive insulin dose reduction at discharge should be considered for patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, ketosis-prone diabetes, metformin prescription, and those with HbA1c <10% at presentation.

ABBREVIATIONS

DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c; KPDM = ketosis-prone diabetes mellitus; TDD = total daily dose.

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.

Diabetes Discharge Planning and Transitions of Care: A Focused Review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a growing problem in the United States. Increasing hospital admissions for diabetes patients demonstrate the need for evidence-based care of diabetes patients by inpatient providers, as well as the importance of continuity of care when transitioning patients from inpatient to outpatient providers.

METHODS

A focused literature review of discharge planning and transitions of care in diabetes, conducted in PubMed is presented. Studies were selected for inclusion based on content focusing on transitions of care in diabetes, risk factors for readmission, the impact of inpatient diabetes education on patient outcomes, and optimal medication management of diabetes during care transitions. American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines for care of patients during the discharge process are presented, as well as considerations for designing treatment regimens for a hospitalized patient transitioning to various care settings.

RESULTS

Multiple factors may make transitions of care difficult, including poor communication, poor patient education, inappropriate follow-up, and clinically complex patients. ADA recommendations provide guidance, but an individualized approach for medication management is needed. Use of scoring systems may help identify patients at higher risk for readmission. Good communication with patients and outpatient providers is needed to prevent patient harm. A team-based approach is needed, utilizing the skills of inpatient and outpatient providers, diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

Structured discharge planning per guideline recommendations can help improve transitions in care for patients with diabetes. A team based, patient-centered approach can help improve patient outcomes by reducing medication errors, delay of care, and hospital readmissions.