Insulin therapy for inpatients with diabetes: Perceptions of resident physicians from disparate geographic training programs

Background: Improving diabetes management in hospitalized patients will require educational efforts for all practitioners, particularly resident physicians. Thus, a better understanding of residents' beliefs about diabetes in the hospital must be obtained.Objective: The purpose of this article was to compare and contrast perceptions of resident physicians from 2 geographically distinct training programs regarding management of inpatients with diabetes.Methods: Residents from training programs in the southwestern and southeastern United States were surveyed in 2006 and 2007 about their views on the importance of inpatient glucose control, their perceptions about desirable target glucose ranges, and the problems they encountered when trying to manage hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.Results: Responses were obtained from 52 of 66 residents at site 1 and from 65 of 85 residents at site 2 (N = 117 total respondents; total response, 77%; mean age, 31 years; 48% men; 61% primary care). Combined analyses revealed that respondents believed that glucose control was “very important” in critically ill patients (96%), perioperative patients (82%), and noncritically ill patients (66%). Most residents indicated that they would target a therapeutic glucose range within published recommendations. Less than half felt “very comfortable” managing inpatient hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, subcutaneous insulin, or insulin drips. Respondents were not very familiar with existing institutional policies or preprinted order sets for insulin therapy. The most commonly reported barrier to management of inpatient hyper-glycemia was lack of knowledge about appropriate insulin regimens and their use.Conclusions: Trainees from 2 very different educational programs shared common beliefs, knowledge deficits, and perceived barriers about inpatient glucose management. Our findings indicate that trainees were uncertain about how to use insulin therapy in the hospital. Future inpatient diabetes quality-improvement efforts should focus on development of uniform educational programs targeting the management of inpatient diabetes, particularly as it relates to insulin use.     

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia: Assessing Perceptions and Barriers to Care Among Resident Physicians

Objective:To develop insight into resident physician attitudes about inpatient hyperglycemia and determine perceived barriers to optimal management.Methods:As part of a planned educational program, a questionnaire was designed and administered to determine the opinions of residents about the importance o inpatient glucose control, their perceptions about what glucose ranges were desirable, and the problems they encountered when trying to manage hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.ResultsOf 70 resident physicians from various services, 52 completed the survey (mean age, 31 years; 48% men; 37% in first year of residency training). Most respondents indicated that glucose control was “very important” in critically ill and perioperative patients but only “somewhat important” in non-critically ill patients. Most residents indicated that they would target a therapeutic glucose range within the recommended levels in published guidelines. Most residents also said they felt “somewhat comfortable” managing hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia and using subcutaneous insulin therapy. whereas most residents (48%) were “not at all comfortable” with use of intravenous administration of insulin. In general, respondents were not very familiar with existing institutional policies and preprinted order sets relating to glucose management. The most commonly reported barrier to management of inpatient hyperglycemia was lack of knowledge about appropriate insulin regimens and how to use them. Anxiety about hypoglycemia was only the third most frequent concern.ConclusionMost residents acknowledged the importance of good glucose control in hospitalized patients and chose target glucose ranges consistent with existing guidelines. Lack of knowledge about insulin treatment options was the most commonly cited barrier to ideal management. Educational programs should emphasize inpatient treatment strategies for glycemic control. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:117-125)     

Daily Inpatient Glycemic Survey (DINGS): A Process to Remotely Identify and Assist in the Management of Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes and Hyperglycemia

Objective: Hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability have been associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and overall costs of care in hospitalized patients. At the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York, a process aimed to improve inpatient glycemic control by remotely assisting primary care teams in the management of hyperglycemia and diabetes was designed.Methods: An electronic query comprised of hospitalized patients with glucose values <70 mg/dL or >350 mg/dL is generated daily. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are individually reviewed by diabetes specialist providers, and management recommendations are sent to primary care teams when applicable. Glucose data was retrospectively examined before and after the establishment of the daily inpatient glycemic survey (DINGS) process, and rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia were compared.Results: Patient-day mean glucose slightly but significantly decreased from 177.6 ± 64.4 to 173.2 ± 59.4 mg/dL (P<.001). The percentage of patient-days with any value >350 mg/dL also decreased from 9.69 to 7.36% (P<.001), while the percentage of patient-days with mean glucose values in the range of 90 to 180 mg/dL increased from 58.1 to 61.4% (P<.001). Glycemic variability, assessed by the SD of glucose, significantly decreased from 53.9 to 49.8 mg/dL (P<.001). Moreover, rates of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) decreased significantly by 41% (P<.001).Conclusion: Quality metrics of inpatient glycemic control improved significantly after the establishment of the DINGS process within our facility. Prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm a causal association.Abbreviations: DINGS = daily inpatient glycemic survey EMR = electronic medical record HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin ICU = intensive care unit VA = Veterans Affairs     

Management Of hyperglycemia in the non-intensive care patient: featuring subcutaneous insulin protocols

ObjectiveTo provide insulin protocols and adjustment guidance for management of hyperglycemia in common inpatient clinical scenarios.MethodsWe performed a PubMed search of pertinent existing literature published between 1980 and 2010.ResultsHyperglycemia is frequently encountered in general medical and surgical wards and has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes, prolonged hospital length of stay, and increased institutional care needs after discharge. No randomized controlled trial has been conducted to define optimal glycemic goals or to investigate the effects of intensive glycemic control in the non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Nonetheless, it is advocated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Diabetes Association, in their 2009 Consensus Statement on Inpatient Glycemic Control, that optimization of glycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia be judiciously offered. This approach is clinically sound, in light of the known deleterious consequences of hyperglycemia in critically and noncritically ill patients and the benefits observed with improved glycemic control in intensive care settings. The approach to hyperglycemiain non-ICU inpatients should follow the principles of provision of basal-nutritional-supplemental insulin. Herein we provide insulin protocols and adjustment guidance for management of hyperglycemia in common clinical scenarios. Recommendations reflect the opinion of national experts in the field and our departmental consensus at Penn State Institute for Diabetes and Obesity.ConclusionGlycemic control in the non-ICU setting is a relevant clinical situation that should be addressed and managed effectively and prudently. We present a practical guide for management of hyperglycemia individualized to various clinical scenarios encountered in the general hospital wards. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:249-260)     

Knowledge,Attitudes, and Decision Making in Hospital Glycemic Management: are Faculty up to Speed?

Objective: Knowledge and confidence deficits in the management of hospital glucose abnormalities are prevalent among resident physicians. However, it is unclear whether such gaps prevail among faculty within different professional fields. In this study, we examined faculty knowledge and explored perceptions of challenges related to the management of inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetes.Methods: We conducted a survey that examined management decisions about inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetes among Medicine, Medicine/Pediatrics, Family and Community Medicine, Surgery, and Neurology faculty clinicians. All participating faculty had teaching and patient care responsibilities.Results: Responses from 69 faculty participants revealed gaps in several areas, including biomedical and contextual knowledge, familiarity with resources, clinical decision making, and self-efficacy. We identified important factors perceived as barriers to optimal glycemic management in the inpatient settings.Conclusion: The results of this study enhance our insight about the limitations existing among faculty related to the management of hyperglycemia and diabetes in hospitalized patients. We suggest that these barriers may impede optimization of patient care. Faculty play a crucial role in the clinical decision-making process and quality of care delivered by trainees. Therefore, attending physicians are likely to impact trainees' clinical performance and competency in the management of inpatient diabetes during training and beyond. Education in this subject should be a priority among trainees and faculty alike.Abbreviation: ICU = intensive care unit     

The Management of Hyperglycemia in Noncritically ill Hospitalized Patients Treated with Continuous Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition

Objective: Hyperglycemia is a common problem in hospitalized patients receiving artificial nutrition, and this development of hyperglycemia during parenteral nutrition therapy (PNT) and enteral nutrition therapy (ENT) increases the risks of hospital-related complications and mortality. This review aims to discuss the pathogenesis of hyperglycemia from artificial nutrition in the hospital, summarize current evidence on the treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin in these patients, and review current guidelines.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “hyperglycemia,” “enteral nutrition,” and “parenteral nutrition” were used to evaluate the current evidence available for treating noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia who were receiving artificial nutrition.Results: The literature review showed that few randomized control trials exist regarding treatment of hyperglycemia in this cohort of patients, and the multiple retrospective evaluations that have addressed this topic provided varied results. In general, intravenous (IV) continuous insulin infusion offers the best glycemic control; however, this route of insulin administration is often burdensome for floor patients and their care teams. Administration of scheduled subcutaneous (SQ) insulin in patients on ENT or PNT is a safe and effective way to manage hyperglycemia, however limited data exist on an appropriate insulin regimen.Conclusion: Further prospective, randomized control trials are necessary to determine the optimal treatment of hyperglycemia for patients receiving ENT or PNT.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CG = conventional glycemic control; ENT = enteral nutrition therapy; GIP = glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1; IG = intensive glycemic control; IV = intravenous; NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn; PNT = parenteral nutrition therapy; SQ = subcutaneous; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TDD = total daily dose; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

Risk Factors for Hypoglycemia in Inpatients with Total Parenteral Nutrition and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post HOC Analysis of the Insupar Study

Objective: Treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of hypoglycemia in hospitalized T2DM patients receiving TPN.Methods: Post hoc analysis of the INSUPAR study, which is a prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of adult inpatients with T2DM in a noncritical setting with indication for TPN.Results: The study included 161 patients; 31 patients (19.3%) had hypoglycemic events, but none of them was severe. In univariate analysis, hypoglycemia was significantly associated with the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, duration of diabetes, use of insulin prior to admission, glycemic variability (GV), belonging to the glargine insulin group in the INSUPAR trial, mean daily grams of lipids in TPN, mean insulin per 10 grams of carbohydrates, duration of TPN, and increase in urea during TPN. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of diabetes with end-organ damage, GV, use of glargine insulin, and TPN duration were risk factors for hypoglycemia.Conclusion: The presence of T2DM with end-organ damage complications, longer TPN duration, belonging to the glargine insulin group, and greater GV are factors associated with the risk of hypoglycemia in diabetic noncritically ill inpatients with parenteral nutrition.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; BMI = body mass index; CV% = coefficient of variation; DM = diabetes mellitus; GI = glargine insulin; GV = glycemic variability; ICU = intensive care unit; RI = regular insulin; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

Implementation of an Electronic Dashboard with A Remote Management System to Improve Glycemic Management Among Hospitalized Adults

Objective: Better glycemic control for hospitalized diabetic patients significantly reduces health expenditures and improves disease outcomes. We developed a dynamic dashboard with a remote management system and evaluated its impact on inpatient glycemic control.Methods: This was an observational institution-wide study; study participants were enrolled from a 1,500-bed public medical center from 2016 to 2018. We evaluated the impact of a dynamic dashboard system, which analyzed and monitored all glucose data with virtual glycemic management recommendation by a team of endocrinologists, over 3 × 1-year periods: 2016 (pre-implementation), 2017 (development), and 2018 (implementation).Results: A total of 51,641 discharges with 878,159 blood glucose measurements were obtained during the 3-year period. After implementation of the dashboard system, the proportion of patients with poor glycemic control (hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia) was reduced by 31% (from 10.2 to 7.0 per day per 100 patients with glucose monitoring; P<.001); hyperglycemia decreased by 25% (from 6.1 to 4.6 per day per 100 patients with glucose monitoring; P<.001), and hypoglycemia decreased by 45% (from 4.2 to 2.3 per day per 100 patients with glucose monitoring; P<.001). Furthermore, the trend in the proportion of patients within the treat-to-target range showed significant improvement (P<.001) during the development period, with effectiveness maintained throughout the implementation period.Conclusion: We successfully installed a dynamic, electronic medical records-based dashboard monitoring system to improve inpatient glycemic control. The system, supported by a team of endocrinologists via remote recommendations, could efficiently fill an important need for improved glycemic management among hospitalized adults.Abbreviations: CDE = certified diabetes educator; DM = diabetes mellitus; EMR = electronic medical record; POC = point-of-care; TCVGH = Taichung Veterans General Hospital; UCSF = University of California, San Francisco; U.S. = United States; vGMS = virtual glucose management service     

Retrospective Study of Glycemic Control Following Transition from the Intensive Care Unit in A National Sample of U.S. Hospitals

Objective: Retrospective study to evaluate glycemic control outcomes after transition from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a non-ICU area in a national sample of U.S. hospitals.Methods: Mean point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) data were assessed overall and at 24 hours before and up to 72 hours after the transition. Comparisons in glucose variability (standard deviation of POC-BG data) were assessed. Impact on glycemic control was evaluated after accounting for hospital characteristics through logistic regression analysis.Results: POC-BG data were obtained from 576 hospitals. Overall mean (SD) POC-BG values in ICU versus non-ICU areas were 176 (24) versus 169 (21) mg/dL (P<.01). Mean (SD) of the ICU POC-BG data were 76 (16) versus 73 (16) mg/dL in the non-ICU data (P<.01). However, when comparing values of POC-BG in the last 24-hour ICU period with those from up to 72 hours posttransition, we found no differences, indicative of overall stable glycemic control and variability after transition. Any deterioration of glucose control following the transition was significantly associated with hospital size (P<.01): the smallest hospitals had the highest percentage of these cases. In addition, geographic region showed significant variability (P = .04), with hospitals in the Midwest and West having the highest proportion of cases in which glycemic control worsened following the transition.Conclusion: Glycemic control and variability did not change after transition from the ICU, but outcomes may depend on certain hospital characteristics. Inpatient glycemic control assessment should move beyond just cross-sectional studies and consider the impact of transitioning across inpatient areas. Other statistical approaches to studying this question should be evaluated.Abbreviations: DM = diabetes mellitus ICU = intensive care unit POC-BG = point-of-care blood glucose     

Impact of Multidisciplinary Process Improvement Interventions on Glucometrics in a Noncritically Ill Setting

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of multidisciplinary process improvement interventions on glycemic control in the inpatient setting of an urban community hospital, utilizing the daily simple average as the primary glucometric measure.Methods: From 2010–2014, five process of care interventions were implemented in the noncritical care inpatient units of the study hospital. Interventions included education of medical staff, implementation of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia protocols, computerized insulin order entry, and coordination of meal tray delivery with finger stick and insulin administration. Unpaired t tests compared pre- and postintervention process measures. Simple average daily glucose measure was the primary glucometric outcome. Secondary outcome measures included frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Glucose outcomes were compared with an in-network hospital that did not implement the respective interventions.Results: A total of 180,431 glucose measurements were reported from 4,705 and 4,238 patients from the intervention and comparison hospitals, respectively. The time between bolus-insulin administration and breakfast tray delivery was significantly reduced by 81.7 minutes (P<.00005). The use of sliding scale insulin was sustainably reduced. Average daily glucose was reduced at both hospitals, and overall rates of hypoglycemia were low.Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach at an urban community hospital with limited resources was effective in improving and sustaining processes of care for improved glycemic control in the noncritical care, inpatient setting.Abbreviations: IQR = interquartile range; JMC = Jacobi Medical Center; NCBH = North Central Bronx Hospital     

Inpatient insulin therapy

Background: Many diabetic, as well as nondiabetic, hospitalized patients develop hyperglycemia. Numerous studies have demonstrated that critically ill, as well as noncritically ill, hospitalized patients who develop hyperglycemia are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality.Objective: The objective of this article was to review the risks associated with hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, the biologic rationale for using insulin to prevent increases in glucose levels, and strategies for managing hyperglycemia in the hospital setting.Methods: We conducted a computerized search of biomedical journal literature from MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid published from 1994 to March 2008. We reviewed English-language original and review articles found under the subject headings “hospitalization and insulin therapy,” “inpatient diabetes and complications,” and “insulin and inflammation.”Results: More than 200 references were found during the literature search. According to the literature, the adverse outcomes that are associated with hyperglycemia may be attributed to the inflammatory and pro-oxidant effects of elevated glucose levels. The use of insulin, which has anti-inflammatory, vasodilatory, and antioxidant properties as well as the ability to inhibit lipolysis and platelet aggregation, can prevent many of these adverse outcomes.Conclusions: Hospitals should have protocols in place for using insulin to treat and prevent hyperglycemia. Subcutaneous insulin may be used for both purposes in most noncritically ill patients, whereas intravenous infusion of insulin is preferred in critically ill patients.     

Impact of a Hypoglycemia Reduction Bundle and a Systems Approach to Inpatient Glycemic Management

Objective: Uncontrolled hyperglycemia and iatrogenic hypoglycemia represent common and frequently preventable quality and safety issues. We sought to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hypoglycemia reduction bundle, proactive surveillance of glycemic outliers, and an interdisciplinary data-driven approach to glycemic management.Methods: Population: all hospitalized adult non–intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients with hyperglycemia and/or a diagnosis of diabetes admitted to our 550-bed academic center across 5 calendar years (CYs). Interventions: hypoglycemia reduction bundle targeting most common remediable contributors to iatrogenic hypoglycemia; clinical decision support in standardized order sets and glucose management pages; measure-vention (daily measurement of glycemic outliers with concurrent intervention by the inpatient diabetes team); educational programs. Measures and analysis: Pearson chi-square value with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia management parameters across the baseline time period (TP1, CY 2009–2010), transitional (TP2, CY 2011–2012), and mature postintervention phase (TP3, CY 2013). Hypoglycemia defined as blood glucose <70 mg/dL, severe hypoglycemia as <40 mg/dL, and severe hyperglycemia >299 mg/dL.Results: A total of 22,990 non-ICU patients, representing 94,900 patient-days of observation were included over the 5-year study. The RR TP3:TP1 for glycemic excursions was reduced significantly: hypoglycemic stay, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.79); severe hypoglycemic stay, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58); recurrent hypoglycemic day during stay, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94); severe hypoglycemic day, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.62); severe hyperglycemic day (>299 mg/dL), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.80).Conclusion: Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia event rates were both improved, with the most marked effect on severe hypoglycemic events. Most of these interventions should be portable to other hospitals.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose CDS = clinical decision support CI = confidence interval CY = calendar year DIG = diabetes initiative group EHR = electronic health record ICU = intensive care unit RR = relative risk SHM = Society of Hospital Medicine TP = time period     

Inpatient Management of Diabets Mellitus Among Noncritically Ill Patients at the University Hospital of Puerto Rico

ObjectiveTo describe the state of glycemic control in noncritically ill diabetic patients admitted to the Puerto Rico University Hospital and adherence to current standard of care guidelines for the treatment of diabetes.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients admitted to a general medicine ward with diabetes mellitus as a secondary diagnosis. Clinical data for the first 5 days and the last 24 hours of hospitalization were analyzed.ResultsA total of 147 noncritically ill diabetic patients were evaluated. The rates of hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) were 56.7 and 2.8%, respectively. Nearly 60% of patients were hyperglycemic during the first 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 226.5 mg/dL), and 54.2% were hyperglycemic during the last 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 196.51 mg/dL). The mean random last glucose value before discharge was 189.6 mg/dL. Most patients were treated with subcutaneous insulin, with basal insulin alone (60%) used as the most common regimen. The proportion of patients classified as uncontrolled receiving basal-bolus therapy increased from 54.3% on day 1 to 60% on day 5, with 40% continuing to receive only basal insulin. Most of the uncontrolled patients had their insulin dose increased (70.1%); however, a substantial proportion had no change (23.7%) or even a decrease (6.2%) in their insulin dose.ConclusionThe management of hospitalized diabetic patients is suboptimal, probably due to clinical inertia, manifested by absence of appropriate modification of insulin regimen and intensification of dose in uncontrolled diabetic patients. A comprehensive educational diabetes management program, along with standardized insulin orders, should be implemented to improve the care of these patients. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:452-460)     

Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D Repletion on Glycemic Control in African-American Males with Prediabetes and Hypovitaminosis D

Objective: This double-blind, randomized, controlled trial evaluated whether 12 months of high-dose vitamin D2 supplementation improved insulin sensitivity and secretion and glycemic status.Methods: African-American males (AAM) with prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] 5.7-6.4%), hypovitaminosis D (25-hydroxyvitamin D [25OHD] 5-29 ng/mL), and prevalent medical problems were supplemented with vitamin D3 (400 IU/day) and then randomized to weekly placebo or vitamin D2 (50,000 IU). The primary outcome was the change in oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS, from an oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT]) after 12 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes included other glycemic indices, A1C, and incident diabetes.Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in vitamin D-supplemented (n = 87) and placebo (n = 86) subjects completing the trial with average concentrations 14.4 ng/mL, 362 mL × min^-1 × m^-2, and 6.1% for 25OHD, OGIS and A1C, respectively. After 12 months, the vitamin D-supplemented group had a change in serum 25OHD +35 versus +6 ng/mL for placebo, P<.001; OGIS +7.8 versus -16.0 mL × min^-1 × m^-2 for placebo, P = .026; and A1C -0.01 versus +0.01% for placebo, P = .66. Ten percent of subjects in both groups progressed to diabetes. A posthoc analysis of participants with baseline impaired fasting glucose (IFG) showed that more subjects in the vitamin D subgroup (31.6%) than placebo (8.3%) returned to normal glucose tolerance, but the difference did not reach significance (P = .13).Conclusion: The trial does not provide evidence that 12 months of high-dose D2 repletion improves clinically relevant glycemic outcomes in subjects with prediabetes and hypovitaminosis D (NCT01375660).Abbreviations: AAM = African-American males A1C = glycosylated hemoglobin BMI = body mass index D2 = ergocalciferol D3 = cholecalciferol IFG = impaired fasting glucose IGT = impaired glucose tolerance JBVAMC = Jesse Brown VA Medical Center OGIS = oral glucose insulin sensitivity index OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test 25OHD = 25-hydroxyvitamin D VHA = Veterans Health Administration     

Effect of An Educational Inpatient Diabetes Management Program on Medical Resident Knowledge and Measures of Glycemic Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of an Inpatient Diabetes Management Program (IDMP) on physician knowledge and inpatient glycemic control.MethodsResidents assigned to General Internal Medicine inpatient services were randomized to receive the IDMP (IDMP group) or usual education only (nonIDMP group). Both groups received an overview of inpatient diabetes management in conjunction with reminders of existing order sets on the hospital Web site. The IDMP group received print copies of the program and access to an electronic version for a personal digital assistant (PDA). A Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) was administered at baseline and at the end of the 1-month rotation. The frequency of hyperglycemia among patients under surveillance by each group was compared by using capillary blood glucose values and a dispersion index of glycemic variability. IDMP users completed a questionnaire related to the program.ResultsTwenty-two residents participated (11 in the IDMP group and 11 in the non-IDMP group). Overall Diabetes Knowledge Test scores improved in both groups (IDMP: 69% ± 1.7% versus 83% ± 2.1%, P = .003; nonIDMP: 76% ± 1.2% versus 84% ± 1.4%, P = .02). The percentage of correct responses for management of corticosteroid-associated hyperglycemia (P = .004) and preoperative glycemic management (P = .006) improved in only the IDMP group. The frequency of hyperglycemia (blood glucose level > 180 mg/dL) and the dispersion index (5.3 ± 7.6 versus 3.7 ± 5.6; P = .2) were similar between the 2 groups.ConclusionAn IDMP was effective at improving physician knowledge for managing hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients treated with corticosteroids or in preparation for surgical procedures. Educational programs directed at improving overall health care provider knowledge for inpatient glycemic management may be beneficial; however, improvements in knowledge do not necessarily result in improved glycemic outcomes. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:238-249)     

Hypoglycemia Rates After Restriction of High-Dose Glargine in Hospitalized Patients

Objective: Hypoglycemia remains one of the main challenges of insulin therapy. To reduce insulin-related hypoglycemia at our institution, we restricted inpatient ordering of high glargine doses (≥0.5 U/kg/day) to endocrine staff in May 2013. This retrospective cohort study assesses its effect on hypoglycemia and glycemic control within 48 hours of admission (ADM).Methods: We identified 692 adult patients hospitalized at Boston Medical Center who received glargine upon ADM from November 1, 2012 through April 30, 2013 as the pre-intervention group, and 651 adult patients admitted between November 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 as the postintervention group. Demographics, medical history, home insulin regimen, concurrent oral diabetes medications or glucocorticoid administration, ADM serum creatinine, all blood glucose levels (BG) ≤48 hours of ADM, and hemoglobin A1c values ≤3 months were assessed. Hypoglycemia was defined as BG ≤70 mg/dL, and hyperglycemia as BG ≥200 mg/dL. Multivariable regression models assessed potential associations between covariates and incidence of hypoglycemia and average BG ≤48 hours of ADM.Results: Demographics were similar between groups. Significantly less patients received high-dose glargine in the post-intervention group (5.2% vs. 0.3%, P<.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia were significantly lower in the postintervention group (20.9% vs. 17.8%, P<.001 per ADM; 3.4% vs. 2.3%, P = .001 per BG measurements [BGM]). Mean BG levels ≤48 hours of ADM and incidence of hyperglycemia were not significantly different. The adjusted incident rate ratio of hypoglycemia was 0.63 per ADM and 0.74 per BGM in the postintervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (P = .001 and P = .063, respectively).Conclusion: We found that implementation of a restriction on high doses of glargine resulted in lower rates of hypoglycemia without worsening glycemic control.Abbreviations:ADM = admissionBG = blood glucoseBGM = blood glucose measurementsBMC = Boston Medical CenterBMI = body mass indexEMR = electronic medical recordHgbA1c = hemoglobin A1cIRR = incidence rate ratioNPH = neutral protamine HagedornTDD = total daily doseT2D = type 2 diabetes     

Comparison Of Hba1C Goals Proposed By An Algorithm To Those Set By Different Members Of Healthcare Teams Within The Dartmouth Hitchcock Health System

Objective: An individualized approach is recommended by guidelines when establishing hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goals. Setting a goal requires experience and awareness; it is time consuming and not always trivial. A previous study proposed an algorithm for assessing the recommended HbA1c target according to individual patient characteristics. Few investigations have explored the variation of HbA1c goals recommended among different types of providers.Methods: We conducted a survey regarding practice settings, practices related to diabetes mellitus type 2, and HbA1c targets recommended to patients. Our objective was to compare HbA1c goals between Dartmouth Hitchcock Healthcare System providers (including endocrinology department, general internal medicine, and family medicine providers) and a previously validated algorithm. The clinical cases presented were those used in the previously published study.Results: The survey was sent to 228 healthcare providers of whom 81 (35.5%) responded. As recommended by the guidelines, healthcare providers individualize their patients' glycemic goals. The glycemic goals proposed by the providers in our institution were similar to those proposed by the international diabetologists and by the algorithm.Conclusion: Our results further validate the proposed algorithm within a heterogeneous population of healthcare providers. The algorithm could help establish glycemic goals and assist healthcare systems in providing more standardized care.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; APRN = advanced practice registered nurse; DH = Dartmouth Hitchcock Healthcare System; FM = family medicine; GIM = general internal medicine; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; PA-C = certified physician assistant     

Virtual Orthopedic-Rehabilitation-Metabolic Collaboration for Treating Osteoporotic HIP Fractures

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual, closed-loop protocol that treated hip fracture patients without formal clinic visits.Methods: In this prospective cohort study, an intervention group of 85 hip fracture patients (33.6%) with vitamin D levels ≥65 nmol/L who received recommendations for osteoporosis treatment, was compared to a nonintervention group of 168 (66.4%), with vitamin D <65 nmol/L. Treatment included vitamin D loading in orthopedic and rehabilitation departments for patients from both groups, and virtual, osteoporosis treatment recommendations by Metabolic Clinic physicians to patients from the intervention group upon achieving a vitamin D level ≥65 nmol/L. Recommendations were given without requiring clinic visits. Osteoporosis drug recommendations were relayed to primary care physicians. The primary endpoint was patients receiving osteoporosis drugs within 12-months post-surgery. Secondary endpoints were patients issued drugs within 3- and 6-months post-surgery, and 1-year post-fracture mortality rates.Results: Among 253 hip fracture patients (81.3 ± 10.7 years-of-age, 68.8% women), the postintervention osteoporosis medication issue rate was higher than in the nonintervention group (48.2% versus 22.0%, respectively; P<.001). More intervention group patients received drugs 3 months (18.8% versus 2.9%; P<.001) and 6 months after surgery (40% versus 5.9%; P<.001). One-year mortality was lower among patients who received any osteoporosis medications (either through our intervention or from community physicians) than among untreated patients (5.1% versus 26.3%; P<.001).Conclusion: Virtual orthopedic-rehabilitation-metabolic collaboration increased osteoporosis treatment rates post-hip fracture. Yet, treatment rates remained <50%. Additional research is required to increase treatment rates further, such as providing drug therapy shortly after surgery, perhaps during rehabilitation, or lowering the vita-min D threshold.Abbreviations: CHS = Clalit Health Services; FLS = Fracture liaison service; HMO = Health Maintenance Organization; MMC = Meir Medical Center; PCP = primary care physician     

Improvements in Metabolic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Following Referral to a Diabetes Center, 2005–2010

Objective: We aimed to compare metabolic control in adults with diabetes in the general population to those newly referred to a diabetes center and after 1 year of specialty care.Methods: We performed a retrospective comparison of adults with diabetes aged ≥20 years data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, n = 1,674) and a diabetes center (n = 3,128) from 2005–2010. NHANES participants represented the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population. Diabetes center referrals lived primarily around eastern Massachusetts. The proportion attaining targets for glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c), blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or all 3 (ABC control) and the proportion prescribed medications to lower A1c, BP, or cholesterol were evaluated.Results: Compared to the general sample, a smaller proportion of new diabetes center referrals had A1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol, 24% vs. 53%, P<.001), BP <130/80 mm Hg (38% vs. 50%, P<.001), and ABC control (5.6% vs. 17%, P<.001) but not LDL<100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L, 54% vs. 53%, P = .65). After 1 year, more diabetes center referrals attained targets for A1c (40%), BP (38%), LDL (67%), and ABC control (15%) (P<.001 for all versus baseline). ABC control was not different between the general sample and diabetes center referrals at 1 year (P = .16). After 1 year, a greater percentage of diabetes center referrals compared to the general sample were prescribed medications to lower glucose (95% vs. 72%), BP (79% vs. 64%), and cholesterol (77% vs. 54%)(all P<.001).Conclusion: Compared to the general population, glycemic control was significantly worse for adults newly referred to the diabetes center. Within 1 year of specialty care, ABC control increased 270% in the setting of significant therapy escalation.Abbreviations:A1c = glycated hemoglobin A1cABC = composite of A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterolACEi = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitorARB = angiotensin receptor blockerBMI = body mass indexBP = blood pressureEHR = electronic health recordLDL = low-density lipoproteinNCHS = National Center for Health StatisticsNHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyPCP = primary care provider     

Diabetes and Hyperglycemia Quality Improvement Efforts in Hospitals in the United States: Current Status,Practice Variation,and Barriers to Implementation

ObjectiveTo determine the status of diabetes and hyperglycemia quality improvement efforts in hospitals in the United States.MethodsWe designed and administered a survey to a convenience sample of hospitals, and the responses were analyzed statistically.ResultsWe received 269 responses from 1,151 requested surveys. The sample was similar to hospitals in the United States on the basis of hospital type and geographic region (P = no significant difference) but not on the basis of number of beds (P < .001). Among responding hospitals, 39%, 21%, and 15% had fully implemented inpatient diabetes and hyperglycemia quality improvement programs for critically ill, non-critically ill, and perioperative patients, respectively. Moreover, 77%, 44%, and 49% had fully implemented protocols for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemic crises, and diabetic ketoacidosis, respectively. Variations in glucose target ranges were noted. The responding hospitals had no standard biochemical definition of hypoglycemia; 47% defined hypoglycemia as a glucose level ≤ 70 mg/dL, but 29%, 8%, 6%, and 4% used < 60, ≤ce:hsp sp="0.10"/>50, < 40, and < 80 mg/dL, respectively. Almost a third of reporting hospitals had no metric to track the quality of inpatient diabetes and hyperglycemia care. More than half (59%) indicated that they did not have an automated capability to extract and analyze glucose data. The most frequent barrier to implementing a glycemic control program was concern regarding hypoglycemia (61%).ConclusionHospitals are addressing the issue of inpatient diabetes and glycemic control but face obstacles to implementation of quality improvement programs and vary in their approach to management. Improving the consistency of glucose control practices within hospitals in the United States should help enhance patient care and safety. Future efforts to help hospitals overcome barriers to introducing glucose control programs could include developing standardized glycemic control metrics, improving data collection and reporting methods, and providing improved tools that enable clinicians to control glucose safely. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:219-230)