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)     

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.     

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     

Changing to Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy for the Inpatient Management of Hyperglycemia—A Natural Experiment

Objective: Most acute-care hospitals have transitioned from sliding-scale to basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia during hospitalization, but there is limited scientific evidence demonstrating better short-term clinical outcomes using the latter approach. The present study sought to determine if using basal-bolus insulin therapy favorably affects these outcomes in noncritical care settings and, if so, whether the magnitude of benefit differs in patients with known versus newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.Methods: This natural experiment compared outcomes in 10,120 non–critically ill adults with type 2 diabetes admitted to an academic teaching hospital before and after hospital-wide implementation of a basal-bolus insulin therapy protocol. A group of 30,271 inpatients without diabetes (type 1 or 2) served as controls. Binomial models were used to compare percentages of patients with type 2 diabetes who were transferred to intensive care, experienced complications, or died in the hospital before and after implementation of the protocol, controlling for changes in the control group. The analysis also evaluated before-after changes in length of stay and glucometric indicators.Results: Implementation of basal-bolus therapy did not reduce intensive care use (the primary outcome), complications, mortality, or median length of stay, except in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (n = 234), who experienced a statistically significant decline in the incidence of complications (P<.01). The absence of effect in previously diagnosed patients was observed in spite of a 32% decline (from 3.7% to 2.5%) in the proportion of inpatient days with hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (P<.01) and a 16% decline (from 13.5% to 11.3%) in the proportion of days with hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL (P<.01).Conclusion: Despite achieving significant reductions in both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, use of basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia in non–critically ill hospitalized patients did not improve short-term clinical outcomes, except in the small minority of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. The optimal management of hyperglycemia for improving these outcomes has yet to be determined.Abbreviation: ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision     

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)     

Effects of a Computerized Order Set on the Inpatient Management of Hyperglycemia: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of a computerized order set on the inpatient management of diabetes and hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial on the general medical service of an academic medical center staffed by residents and hospitalists. Consecutively enrolled patients with diabetes mellitus or inpatient hyperglycemia were randomized on the basis of their medical team to usual care (control group) or an admission order set built into the hospital’s computer provider order entry (CPOE) system (intervention group). All teams received a detailed subcutaneous insulin protocol and case-based education. The primary outcome was the mean percent of glucose readings per patient between 60 and 180 mg/dL.ResultsBetween April 5 and June 22, 2006, we identified 179 eligible study subjects. The mean percent of glucose readings per patient between 60 and 180 mg/dL was 75% in the intervention group and 71% in the usual care group (adjusted relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.80). In comparison with usual care, the intervention group also had a lower patient-day weighted mean glucose (148 mg/dL versus 158 mg/dL, P = .04), less use of sliding-scale insulin by itself (25% versus 58%, P = .01), and no significant difference in the rate of severe hypoglycemia (glucose < 40 mg/dL; 0.5% versus 0.3% of patient-days, P = .58).ConclusionThe use of an order set built into a hospital’s CPOE system led to improvements in glycemic control and insulin ordering without causing a significant increase in hypoglycemia. Other institutions with CPOE should consider adopting similar order sets as part of a comprehensive inpatient glycemic management program. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:209-218)     

Prevalence of Diabetes,Prediabetes, and Stress Hyperglycemia: Insulin Therapy and Metabolic Control in Patients on Total Parenteral Nutrition (Prospective Multicenter Study)

ObjectiveThe prevalence of carbohydrate metabolism disorders in patients who receive total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is not well known. These disorders can affect the treatment, metabolic control, and prognosis of affected patients. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence in noncritically ill patients on TPN of diabetes, prediabetes, and stress hyperglycemia; the factors affecting hyperglycemia during TPN; and the insulin therapy provided and the metabolic control achieved.MethodsWe undertook a prospective multicenter study involving 19 Spanish hospitals. Noncritically ill patients who were prescribed TPN were included, and data were collected on demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables (glycated hemoglobin, C-reactive protein [CRP], capillary blood glucose) as well as insulin treatment.ResultsThe study included 605 patients. Before initiation of TPN, the prevalence of known diabetes was 17.4%, unknown diabetes 4.3%, stress hyperglycemia 7.1%, and prediabetes 27.8%. During TPN therapy, 50.9% of patients had at least one capillary blood glucose of > 180 mg/dL. Predisposing factors were age, levels of CRP and glycated hemoglobin, the presence of diabetes, infectious complications, the number of grams of carbohydrates infused, and the administration of glucose-elevating drugs. Most (71.6%) patients were treated with insulin. The mean capillary blood glucose levels during TPN were: known diabetes (178.6 ± 46.5 mg/dL), unknown diabetes (173.9 ± 51.9), prediabetes (136.0 ± 25.4), stress hyperglycemia (146.0 ± 29.3), and normal (123.2 ± 19.9) (P < .001).ConclusionThe prevalence of carbohydrate metabolism disorders is very high in noncritically ill patients on TPN. These disorders affect insulin treatment and the degree of metabolic control achieved. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:59-67)     

Tratamiento de la hiperglucemia en el hospital. Impresiones y conocimientos del médico residente

Background and objectiveIn many hospitals, adequate glycemic control is not achieved despite implementation of new insulin therapy protocols. Our aim was to assess resident physician’ attitudes toward inpatient hyperglycemia, barriers to achieve optimum control, and impact on them of an insulin training programMaterial and methodsA questionnaire was used to assess understanding and standard management of hyperglycemia before and six months after implementation of an inpatient insulin treatment program.ResultsTwenty-five interns completed the questionnaire. Glycemic control was considered “very important” in all admission situations, but was only considered “very important” in conventional hospitalization by 36% of interns. Most of these felt “comfortable” using sliding scales, but not with the basal/bolus regimen, which was the least commonly used. Perception of number of well-controlled patients and comfort and use of basal/bolus therapy increased at six months, but use of “sliding scales” remained high. The greatest difficulty reported for adequate management of hyperglycemia was the lack of knowledge.ConclusionsMost residents are aware of the importance of adequate glycemic control, but cannot achieve it because of inadequate knowledge. The insulin training program led to an improved perception and applicability of basal-bolus insulin regimens. However, despite all efforts, use of sliding scales remains high. Training programs should emphasize management of hyperglycemia.     

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)     

The Rationale for use of Incretins in the Management of new Onset Diabetes After Transplantation (NODAT)

Objective: Owing to advances in transplant science, increasing numbers of patients are receiving solid organ transplantation. New onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) frequently develops in transplant patients and requires acute and often ongoing management of hyperglycemia. The metabolic derangements of NODAT are similar to those of classic type 2 diabetes, and treatment has typically followed diabetes standards of care. Best practices for NODAT management remain to be developed.Methods: The mechanistic suitability of incretins to treat NODAT pathogenesis has been hitherto underappreciated. This review details the specific mechanistic value of incretins in patients with immunosuppression-associated hyperglycemia.Results: Corticosteroids have long been known to exert their effects on glucose metabolism by decreasing glucose utilization and enhancing hepatic gluconeogenesis. Corticosteroids also significantly and directly reduce insulin secretion, as do calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), another commonly used group of immunosuppressive drugs that cause hyperglycemia and NODAT. The ability of incretins to counteract immunosuppressant-induced disruptions in insulin secretion suggest that the insulinotropic, glucagonostatic, and glucose-lowering actions of incretins are well suited to treat immunosuppressant-induced hyperglycemia in NODAT. Additional benefits of incretins include decreased glucagon levels and improved insulin resistance. In the case of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, weight loss is another benefit, countering the weight gain that is a common consequence of both hyperglycemia and transplantation. These benefits make incretins very attractive and deserving of more investigation.Conclusion: Among diabetes treatment options, incretin therapies uniquely counteract immunosuppressant drugs' interference with insulin secretion. We propose an incretin-based treatment paradigm for NODAT management.Abbreviations: CNI = calcineurin inhibitor DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4 GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1 HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin HLA = human leukocyte antigen NODAT = new onset diabetes after transplantation     

How Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Translate Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data into Diabetes Management Decisions

Objective: To understand how patients use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data in their diabetes management.Methods: We surveyed patients who regularly used CGM (>6 days per week), using 70 questions, many scenario-based. The survey had 6 sections: patient characteristics, general CGM use, hypoglycemia prevention and management, hyperglycemia prevention and management, insulin dosing adjustments (both for incidental hyperglycemia not at meals and at mealtimes), and real-time use versus retrospective analysis.Results: The survey was completed by 222 patients with type 1 diabetes. In response to a glucose of 220 mg/dL, the average correction dose adjustment based on rate of change arrows varied dramatically. Specifically, when the CGM device showed 2 arrows up (glucose increasing >3 mg/dL/minute), respondents stated they would increase their correction bolus, on average, by 140% (range, 0 to 600%). Conversely, 2 arrows down (glucose decreasing >3 mg/dL/minute) caused respondents to reduce their dose by 42%, with 24% omitting their dose entirely. Furthermore, 59% of respondents stated they would delay a meal in response to rapidly rising glucose, whereas 60% would wait until after a meal to bolus in response to falling glucose levels. With a glucose value of 120 mg/dL and a falling glucose trend, 70% of respondents would prophylactically consume carbohydrates to avoid hypoglycemia.Conclusion: CGM users utilize CGM data to alter multiple aspects of their diabetes care, including insulin dose timing, dose adjustments, and in hypoglycemia prevention. The insulin adjustments are much larger than common recommendations. Additional studies are needed to determine appropriate insulin adjustments based on glucose trend data.Abbreviations: A_1c = hemoglobin A_1c CGM = continuous glucose monitoring ROC = rate of change SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose     

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)     

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     

Care Directed by a Specialty-Trained Nurse Practioner or Physician Assistant can Overcome Clinical Inertia in Management of Inpatient Diabetes

ObjectiveThe study’s objective was to determine the impact of care directed by a specialty-trained nurse practitioner (NP) or physician assistant (PA) on use of basal-bolus insulin therapy and glycemic control in a population of noncritically ill patients with diabetes.MethodsA retrospective review of diabetes patients evaluated between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 was conducted. Patients cotreated by a specialty-trained NP/PA were compared with patients who did not receive such care.ResultsIn total, 171 patients with 222 hospitalizations were cotreated by an NP/PA and 543 patients with 665 hospitalizations were not. Patients with NP/PA involvement were younger, and had more frequent hyperglycemia, and had greater corticosteroid use than patients without NP/PA involvement (P < .01 for all). Basal-bolus insulin therapy was administered to 80% of patients with NP/PA involvement and 34% of patients without it (P < .01). After adjustment for age, sex, hyperglycemia measures, and corticosteroid use, the odds of basal-bolus insulin therapy being administered were increased significantly through NP/PA care (odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.36-5.67; P < .01). After adjustment for these variables and insulin regimen, NP/PA care was significantly correlated with lower mean point-of-care glucose levels at 24 hours before discharge (P = .042).ConclusionDiabetes care assisted by an NP/PA trained in inpatient diabetes management results in greater use of recommended basal-bolus insulin therapy and is correlated with lower mean glucose levels before discharge. Adapting this model for use outside an endocrinology consult service needs to be explored so that the expertise can be brought to a broader inpatient population with diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:112-119)     

Incorporating postprandial and fasting plasma glucose into clinical management strategies

Background: Targeting plasma glucose is a widely accepted practice in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Although clinicians have traditionally relied on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels for diagnosis and as a target for therapy, the focus has expanded to include the contribution of postprandial glucose (PPG) to glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels.Objective: This article examines the contributions of FPG and PPG to A1C levels in patients with diabetes and discusses the impact of these findings on insulin treatment strategies for patients who fail to achieve recommended A1C goals.Methods: Relevant articles were identified through a PubMed search of the literature (1975–2007) using the following search terms: fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, postprandial hyperglycemia, and glycemic control.Results: Changes in PPG levels are typically the first signs of abnormal glucose metabolism associated with type 2 DM, and they are a useful measure of glycemic control in patients with near-normal FPG and high A1C levels. A substantial proportion of patients considered to have good glycemic control (A1C <7.0%) may continue to experience elevated PPG levels, which have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. FPG levels may predict the degree of postprandial hyperglycemia and the extent of PPG excursion. Conversely, correction of PPG levels may reduce FPG levels by suppressing hepatic glucose production. Evidence indicates that therapy targeting both FPG and PPG is associated with optimal reductions in A1C levels. At very high A1C levels (>9%-10%), FPG may play a greater role in overall glucose control than does PPG, but PPG becomes a more important contributor as A1C levels decrease. Increasing evidence supports the long-term benefits of early initiation of intensive insulin therapy. In particular, prandial insulin therapy may address the issue of postprandial hyperglycemia, which may be insufficiently controlled with oral agents and/or basal insulin alone.Conclusions: Both FPG and PPG affect A1C levels and are important contributors to determining overall glycemic control. Alternative insulin therapies (eg, inhaled insulin) that minimize barriers to insulin therapy and the appropriate targeting of FPG and PPG levels may improve long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes.     

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     

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     

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)     

Is There A “July Effect” for Inpatient Glycemic Control?

ObjectiveThe period of resident turnover in teaching hospitals is considered by some to worsen health outcomes and is called the “July effect.” We sought to study glycemic control in patients admitted to medical floors and identify any adverse outcomes related to a “July effect.”MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study that compared inpatient glycemic control at the start and end of a single academic year (July 2009 to June 2010). A total of 108 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus were included in the first group (Group 1: July to September 2009), and 134 were in the second group (Group 2: April to June 2010). Four capillary blood glucose measurements were taken from Days 2 to 6 of hospitalization, and clinical data pertinent to glycemic management were collected.ResultsData analysis showed no significant difference in the overall inpatient glycemic control between the 2 groups. The mean glucose levels were 168.67 mg/dL and 168.59 mg/dL for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, 67% of patients in Group 1 and 72.9% in Group 2 were within a blood glucose range of 70 to 179 mg/dL, and 32% of patients in Group 1 and 44.1% of patients in Group 2 were within the range of 140 to 179 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia occurred in 17% and 18.6% of Groups 1 and 2, respectively. No difference in diabetes treatment ordering practices of residents was detected.ConclusionThis study did not show any evidence to support the “July effect” on overall inpatient glycemic control. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:919-924)