Safety and Efficacy of an Insulin Infusion Protocol Designed for the Non-Intensive Care Setting

ObjectiveTo determine whether glycemic control can be safely achieved with use of a simplified insulin infusion protocol in hospitalized patients who are not in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsWe developed a novel intravenous insulin protocol specifically designed for use in the non-ICU setting. We then collected clinical data on the first 30 patients treated with use of this protocol. Our study focused on safety and glycemic control.ResultsThe insulin infusion protocol was used in 30 patients for a total of 634 hours. A single hypoglycemic episode (glucose level < 60 mg/dL) occurred in 3 patients. The target mean glucose level of < 150 mg/dL was achieved in 9 hours. Once the glucose target had been achieved, the mean and median glucose concentrations were 156 mg/dL and 140 mg/dL, respectively.ConclusionUse of a simple intravenous insulin protocol can safely and effectively control the blood glucose level in patients in a non-ICU setting. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:682-688)     

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     

Update on Inpatient Glycemic Control in Hospitals in the United States

ObjectiveTo provide data on glucose control in hospitals in the United States, analyzing measurements from the largest number of facilities to date.MethodsPoint-of-care bedside glucose (POC-BG) test results were extracted from 575 hospitals from January 2009 to December 2009 by using a laboratory information management system. Glycemic control for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU areas was assessed by calculating patient-day-weighted mean POC-BG values and rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. The relationship between POC-BG levels and hospital characteristics was determined.ResultsA total of 49,191,313 POC-BG measurements (12,176,299 ICU and 37,015,014 non-ICU values) were obtained from 3,484,795 inpatients (653,359 in the ICU and 2,831,436 in non-ICU areas). The mean POC-BG was 167 mg/dL for ICU patients and 166 mg/dL for nonICU patients. The prevalence of hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/ dL) was 32.2% of patient-days for ICU patients and 32.0% of patient-days for non-ICU patients. The prevalence of hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) was 6.3% of patient-days for ICU patients and 5.7% of patient-days for non-ICU patients. Patient-day-weighted mean POC-BG levels varied on the basis of hospital size (P < .01), type (P < .01), and geographic location (P < .01) for ICU and non-ICU patients, with larger hospitals (≥ 400 beds), academic hospitals, and US hospitals in the West having the lowest mean POC-BG values. The percentage of patient-days in the ICU characterized by hypoglycemia was highest among larger and academic hospitals (P < .05) and least among hospitals in the Northeast (P < .001).ConclusionHyperglycemia is common in hospitals in the United States, and glycemic control may vary on the basis of hospital characteristics. Increased hospital participation in data collection may support a national benchmarking process for the development of optimal practices to manage inpatient hyperglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:853-861)     

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.     

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     

Once-Daily Insulin Glargine Versus 6-Hour Sliding Scale Regular Insulin for Control of Hyperglycemia after a Bariatric Surgical Procedure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectiveTo determine whether once-daily insulin glargine could provide better glycemic control after an abdominal surgical procedure than the traditional use of sliding scale regular insulin (SSRI).MethodsBecause 20% to 30% of patients undergoing gastric bypass have a history of overt diabetes and another 5% to 10% are estimated to have impaired glucose tolerance, we chose to study these patients. We treated 81 patients with postoperative blood glucose levels of more than 144 mg/dL after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgical procedure. They were randomized to receive either SSRI or insulin glargine either directly or after initial intravenous insulin infusion in the intensive care unit (ICU).ResultsOverall, the mean blood glucose level after SSRI therapy was 154 ± 33 mg/dL, and the mean blood glucose value after insulin glargine treatment was 134 ± 30 mg/dL (P < 0.01). The mean blood glucose level for patients first treated with intravenous insulin infusion in the ICU was 125 mg/dL, in comparison with 145 mg/dL in the non-ICU patients whose treatment began directly with 0.3 U/kg of insulin glargine. Of 926 blood glucose measurements, only 3 were less than 60 mg/dL.ConclusionIn this study, control of postoperative hyperglycemia was significantly better with use of insulin glargine in comparison with SSRI therapy, and hypo-glycemia was very infrequent. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13: 225-231)     

Impaired Postoperative Hyperglycemic Stress Response Associated with Increased Mortality in Patients in the Cardiothoracic Surgery Intensive Care Unit

ObjectiveTo describe the association of tight glycemic control with intensive insulin therapy and clinical outcome among patients in the cardiothoracic surgery intensive care unit.MethodsAll patients who underwent cardiothoracic surgery and were admitted to the cardiothoracic surgery intensive care unit between September 13, 2007, and November 1, 2007, were enrolled. Clinical and metabolic data were prospectively collected. All patients received intensive insulin therapy using a nurse-driven dynamic protocol targeting blood glucose values of 80 to 110 mg/dL. Four stages of critical illness were defined as follows: acute critical illness (intensive care unit days 0-2), prolonged acute critical illness (intensive care unit 3 or more days), chronic critical illnesss (tracheotomy performed), and recovery (liberated from ventilator).ResultsOne hundred fourteen patients were enrolled. Seventy-three (64%) recovered during acute critical illness, 26 (23%) recovered during prolonged acute critical illness, and 15 (13%) progressed to chronic critical illness. All 6 deaths were among patients in chronic critial illness. Admission blood glucose and average blood glucose values for the first 12 hours were lower in patients who developed chronic critical illness and died and were higher in patients who developed chronic critical illness and survived (P = .007 and P = .007, respectively). Severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 40 mg/dL) occurred once (0.03% of all measurements). Lower initial blood glucose values, which reflect an impaired stress response immediately after surgery, were associated with increased mortality, and a significant delay in achieving tight glycemic control with intensive insulin therapy was associated with prolonged intensive care unit course, but no increase in mortality.ConclusionThe study findings suggest that acute postoperative hyperglycemia and its prompt correction with intensive insulin therapy are associated with favorable outcomes in patients in the cardiothoracic surgery intensive care unit. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:798-804)     

Hospital hypoglycemia: From observation to action

Background: A preponderance of evidence indicates that when treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin is provided for certain hospitalized populations, the attainment of appropriate glycemic targets improves nonglycemic outcomes such as mortality rates, morbidities (eg, wound infection, critical illness polyneuropathy, bacteremia, new renal insufficiency), duration of ventilator dependency, transfusion requirements, and length of hospital stay. Nevertheless, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intensive insulin therapy and studies of outcomes before and after implementation of tight glycemic control have consistently recognized an increased incidence of hypoglycemia as a complication associated with the use of lower glycemic targets and higher doses of insulin.Objectives: This commentary compares the quality of the available evidence on the clinical impact of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. We present treatment strategies designed to prevent iatrogenic hypoglycemia in the hospital setting.Methods: The PubMed database and online citations of articles tracked subsequent to publication were searched for articles on the epidemiology, clinical impact, and mechanism of harm of hypoglycemia published since 1986. In addition, we searched the literature for RCTs conducted since 2001 concerning intensive insulin therapy in the hospital critical care setting, including meta-analyses; letters to the editor were excluded. The retrieved studies were scanned and chosen selectively for full-text review based on the study size and design, novelty of findings, and evidence related to the possible clinical impact of hypoglycemia. Reference lists from the retrieved studies were searched for additional studies. Reports were summarized for the purpose of comparing and contrasting the qualitative nature of information about iatrogenic hypoglycemia in the hospital.Results: Eight RCTs of intensive glycemic management, 16 observational studies of hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia (including studies of outcomes before and after implementation of tight glycemic control), and 4 case reports on patients with hypoglycemia were selected for discussion of the incidence of hypoglycemia, significance of hypoglycemia as a marker or cause of poor prognosis, and clinical harm of hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia was identified in clinical trials as either a category of adverse events or a complication of intensified insulin treatment. For example, a recent meta-analysis found that the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was higher among critically ill patients treated with intensive insulin therapy than among control patients, with a pooled relative risk of 6.0 (95% CI, 4.5–8.0). In the largest multisite RCT on glycemic control among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) conducted to date, deaths were reported for 27.5% (829/3010 patients) in the intensive-treatment group and 24.9% (751/3012 patients) in the conventional-treatment group (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02–1.28; P = 0.02). In another multisite ICU study, although the intensive and control groups had similar mortality rates, the mortality rate was higher among hypoglycemic participants than among nonhypoglycemic participants (32.2% vs 13.6%, respectively; P < 0.01). Pooled data from 2 singlesite studies in medical and surgical ICUs revealed an increased risk of hypoglycemia in the intensive-treatment group compared with the conventional-treatment group (11.3% [154/1360] and 1.8% [25/1388], respectively; P < 0.001), but the hospital mortality rate was similar for the 2 groups (50.6% [78/154] and 52.0% [13/25], respectively). Specific sequelae of hypoglycemia affecting individual patients were described in the RCTs as well as in the observational studies. New guidelines for glycemic control have recently been issued, but results of the studies using the new targets are not yet available. We propose treatment strategies designed to prevent iatrogenic hypoglycemia in the hospital setting.Conclusions: In response to the growing evidence on the risk of hypoglycemia during intensified glycemic management of hospitalized patients, professional organizations recently revised targets for glycemic control. It is appropriate for institutions to reevaluate hospital protocols for glycemic management with intravenous insulin and, on general wards, to implement standardized order sets for use of subcutaneous insulin to achieve beneficial targets using safe strategies.     

Benchmarking Glycemic Control In U.S. Hospitals

ObjectiveReport data on glucose control from 635 U.S. hospitals.MethodsPoint-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) test data from January through December 2012 from 635 facilities were extracted. Glucose control was evaluated using patient-day–weighted mean POC-BG values. We calculated hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia rates, stratified by presence or absence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and we evaluated the relationship between glycemic control and hospital characteristics.ResultsIn total, 51,375,764 POC-BG measurements (non-ICU, 39,197,762; ICU, 12,178,002) from 2,612,966 patients (non-ICU, 2,415,209; ICU, 575,084) were analyzed. The mean POC-BG was 167 mg/dL for non-ICU patients and 170 mg/dL for ICU patients. The prevalence of hyperglycemia (defined as glucose value > 180 mg/dL) was 32.3 and 28.2% in non-ICU and ICU patients, respectively. The prevalence of hypoglycemia (defined as glucose value < 70 mg/dL) was 6.1 and 5.6% in non-ICU and ICU patients, respectively. In non-ICU and ICU settings, the patient-day–weighted mean glucose was highest in the smallest hospitals, in rural hospitals, and in hospitals located in the Northeast (all P < .01). For non-ICU patients, we observed a significant difference in the percentage of patient days with hypoglycemia by geographic region only (P < .001). In ICU patients, the prevalence of hypoglycemia varied significantly by hospital type (P < .03) and geographic region (P < .01).ConclusionIn this largest POC-BG data set analysis conducted to date, glycemic control varied according to hospital characteristics. Our findings remain consistent with previous reports. Among other variables, national benchmarking of inpatient glucose data will need to consider differences in hospital characteristics. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:876-883)     

A Retrospective Study Comparing Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Glargine As Basal Therapy In Prednisone-Associated Diabetes Mellitus In Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic outcomes in hospitalized patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) vs glargine as basal insulin for management of glucocorticoid-associated hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records in prednisone-treated adult patients with hyperglycemia in a university hospital. Consecutive patients were selected in both the NPH and glargine cohorts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were assessed in each cohort. Glycemic outcomes were analyzed by comparing fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose concentration, median daily blood glucose concentration, and the number of hypoglycemic episodes on a prespecified index day.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients were included: 60 patients in the NPH cohort and 60 patients in the glargine cohort. The weight-based insulin requirement was lower in the NPH cohort than in the glargine cohort (0.27 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.34 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .04] for basal insulin and 0.26 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.36 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .03] for bolus insulin). NPH and glargine cohorts were similar regarding age, sex, race, body mass index, hemoglobin A_1c, serum creatinine, and prednisone dosage. Glycemic outcomes in the NPH cohort compared with outcomes in the glargine cohort were similar regarding mean fasting blood glucose concentration (134 ± 49 mg/dL vs 139 ± 54 mg/dL [P = .63]), mean daily blood glucose (167 ± 46 mg/dL vs 165 ± 52 mg/dL [P = .79]), median blood glucose (160 ± 49 mg/dL vs 159 ± 57 mg/dL [P = .90]), and number of hypoglycemic episodes per day (0.12 ± 0.3 vs 0.10 ± 0.3 [P = .77]).ConclusionsNPH and glargine appear to be equally effective as basal insulin in the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving prednisone. However, the total daily insulin doses used were lower in the NPH cohort. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:712-719)     

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     

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 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)     

Barriers to Hyperglycemia Control in Hospitalized Patients: a Descriptive Epidemiologic Study

ObjectiveTo identify barriers that prevent appropriate control of hyperglycemia in a university teaching hospital and to document their frequency in patients hospitalized for cardiothoracic surgery.MethodsIn this observational study, our inpatient diabetes team identified barriers to adequate glycemic control for diabetic patients in the cardiothoracic surgical intensive care unit between September 1, 2006, and January 3, 2007. Data were collected through chart review and patient and staff interviews. Blood glucose concentrations greater than 160 mg/dL prompted intervention, which involved speaking to the prescribing practitioner and making a treatment recommendation. Each intervention was reviewed by the diabetes nurses using the critical incident technique. The nurses determined which underlying barriers were responsible for the lack of glycemic control and had necessitated the intervention.ResultsOf 105 patients, 6 (5.7%) demonstrated good glucose control (75% of their blood glucose measurements were 80-160 mg/dL) and did not require intervention, and 99 (94.3%) required intervention. Diabetes nurses intervened 202 times; each patient averaged 2.04 interventions during their hospital stay. Nurses coded 398 barriers to the 202 interventions; each intervention had between 1 and 5 barriers coded as the underlying reason(s) for the intervention. Thirty barriers to adequate glycemic control were identified. Eight barriers represented 74% of the barriers encountered. Therapeutic reluctance was the most common followed by inappropriate titration of medication, lack of basal insulin, lack of weekend staff trained in diabetes management, use of a sliding scale, inappropriate medications being prescribed, knowledge deficit of the weekend staff, and outpatient diabetes medications not being restarted.ConclusionsWe identified the most frequent barriers to adequate glycemic control in this group of patients and suggest how limited resources should be focused to improve glycemic control. Barrier incidence should be determined in other populations of diabetic patients. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:813-819)     

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     

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     

The Use of Premixed Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Advantages and Limitations

Background:Intensive, target-oriented therapy is the standard of care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetesmellitus (DM). Early and aggressive use of insulin that is as close as possible to the physiologic pattern of insulin secretion from healthy pancreatic β-cells is advocated to achieve glycemic goals and reduce complications of DM.Objective:The objective of this article was to review the characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks of premixedinsulin analogues and to evaluate their role in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.Methods:A PubMed search of articles from 1990 to 2006 was undertaken using the search terms type 2 diabetes, basalbolus therapy, premixed insulins, biphasic insulins, and insulin analogues. Pertinent content from relevant articles was extracted and combined with the authors' knowledge, experience, and clinical expertise.Results:The advent of insulin analogues has streamlined the treatment of patients with DM. When to initiate insulin during the course of treatment is the subject of much debate. Insulin therapy targeting both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia is important in achieving optimal blood glucose (BG) control in patients with type 2 DM. A practical and feasible option is the use of >1 injection of premixed insulin analogues. Premixed insulin preparations provide both basal and prandial coverage because of their biphasic pharmacokinetic properties. Clinical trials have shown that these agents improve glycemic control, are associated with an acceptably low rate of severe hypoglycemia, and have a high degree of patient acceptance. Limitations include the inability to adjust the long- and short-acting components separately, to use a flexible regimen of self-titration and premeal bolus-insulin calculations, and to adequately treat postlunch and earlymorning BG elevations.Conclusion:Clinicians should be aware of premixed insulin analogues' advantages and limitations so that these agentscan be used appropriately in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.     

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     

Statistical Transformation and the Interpretation of Inpatient Glucose Control Data

ObjectiveTo introduce a statistical method of assessing hospital-based non–intensive care unit (non-ICU) inpatient glucose control.MethodsPoint-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) data from hospital non-ICUs were extracted for January 1 through December 31, 2011. Glucose data distribution was examined before and after Box-Cox transformations and compared to normality. Different subsets of data were used to establish upper and lower control limits, and exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control charts were constructed from June, July, and October data as examples to determine if out-of-control events were identified differently in nontransformed versus transformed data.ResultsA total of 36,381 POC-BG values were analyzed. In all 3 monthly test samples, glucose distributions in nontransformed data were skewed but approached a normal distribution once transformed. Interpretation of out-of-control events from EWMA control chart analyses also revealed differences. In the June test data, an out-of-control process was identified at sample 53 with nontransformed data, whereas the transformed data remained in control for the duration of the observed period. Analysis of July data demonstrated an out-of-control process sooner in the transformed (sample 55) than nontransformed (sample data, whereas for October, transformed data remained in control longer than nontransformed data.ConclusionStatistical transformations increase the normal behavior of inpatient non-ICU glycemic data sets. The decision to transform glucose data could influence the interpretation and conclusions about the status of inpatient glycemic control. Further study is required to determine whether transformed versus nontransformed data influence clinical decisions or evaluation of interventions. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:207-212)     

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)