Development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for IV insulin: A statewide collaborative approach

Purpose: Recent studies have shown that the outcomes of hospitalized patients are greatly enhanced when steps are taken to improve control of their blood glucose levels. The Georgia Hospital Association Research and Education Foundation's Partnership for Health Accountability established a Diabetes Special Interest Group (D-SIG) in February 2003. Goals of the D-SIG were to enlighten health care professionals in Georgia hospitals about the benefits of controlling hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients and to develop processes to assist hospitals in the adoption of an IV insulin dosing algorithm, development of an IV insulin standing order set, and implementation of a hyperglycemia management plan.Methods: The D-SIG created an assessment tool titled “Key Elements of IV Insulin Guidelines” and evaluated numerous published IV insulin administration algorithms and protocols. After an extensive literature review, including international protocols and guidelines, user-friendly guidelines for subcutaneous and IV insulin were developed by a multidisciplinary work group, with members representing hospitals and other stakeholders from throughout the state. The group chose a well-researched method that was available in both computerized and hand-calculated formats and developed a Columnar Insulin Dosing Chart to assist with IV insulin infusions. This insulin-infusion table stems from mathematical formulas published by multiple investigators since the 1980s. The D-SIG guidelines and dosing chart were evaluated for ease of use, effectiveness, and safety in 3 settings: a small, rural critical-access hospital (CAH); an intensive care unit (ICU) in the trauma center of a large Georgia teaching hospital; and a surgical ICU in a midsize metropolitan hospital.Results: After implementation of the guidelines, the incidence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level <60 mg/dL) was 0.9% in the trauma center ICU and 0.6% in the surgical ICU. All hypoglycemic patients in these 2 settings were asymptomatic, remained hypoglycemic only for a short time, and experienced no complications attributable to hypoglycemia. Using a moderate insulin sensitivity level for dosing initiations resulted in a time to target blood glucose level (80–110 mg/dL) of 6.4 hours, whereas using the most conservative approach required 12.8 hours to attain target range. At the CAH, time to reach the target blood glucose level (90–140 mg/dL) was 5.8 hours, and no episodes of hypoglycemia were reported. Although not part of the pilot initiative, the surgical ICU also reported a 5-fold reduction in surgical infection rates. The success of the dosing chart and standing order set paralleled that of the computerized formula when similar initiation doses were used.Conclusions: The Columnar Insulin Dosing Chart and sample clinical guidelines were piloted at 3 different settings and found to be safe and effective. Furthermore, by including the treatment for hypoglycemia in the guidelines, nurses in all patient care areas were able to manage blood glucose levels below the target range in a safe and timely manner. Use of the dosing chart and guidelines reduced blood glucose levels to the target range with no clinically significant hypoglycemia.     

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)     

Inpatient to Outpatient Transfer of Diabetes Care: Planning for an Effective Hospital Discharge

ObjectiveTo review data on diabetes discharge planning, provide a definition of an effective diabetes discharge, and summarize one institution’s diabetes discharge planning processes in a teaching hospital.MethodsWe performed a MEDLINE search of the English-language literature published between January 1998 and December 2007 for articles related to the inpatient to outpatient transition of diabetes care. Regulatory guidelines about discharge planning were reviewed. We also analyzed our institution’s procedures regarding hospital discharge.ResultsWe define an effective diabetes discharge as one where the patient has received the necessary skills training and been provided with a clear and understandable postdischarge plan for diabetes care that has been clearly documented and is accessible by the patient’s outpatient health care team. Diabetes is one of the most common conditions managed in the hospital, yet how to transition a patient with diabetes to the outpatient setting is understudied, and the outcome of patients with diabetes after discharge is unknown. Strategies that can be used to ensure an effective diabetes discharge are early identification of patients in need of education, implementation of a clinical pathway, and clear instructions about medications and follow-up appointments at the time of discharge.ConclusionsEffective transfer of care from the inpatient to the outpatient setting remains a priority in the United States. Studies are needed to better define how best to ensure that patients with diabetes are successfully transitioned to ambulatory care. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:263-269)     

Evaluation of Diabetes Management In A Rural Community Hospital

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of implementing standardized insulin protocols in a small, rural community hospital.MethodsThis retrospective review was performed on charts of 300 inpatients who received insulin treatment while hospitalized between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006. For patients who met the inclusion criteria, the collected information included the following: serum glucose level at hospital admission, glucose level that initiated the treatment protocol, time-to-fasting euglycemia, time-to-random euglycemia, and method of insulin administration. Comparisons were performed between the effectiveness of the new insulin protocols and routine insulin treatment orders.ResultsA total of 168 patients met the study inclusion criteria. The mean glucose concentration that triggered initiation of insulin treatment was 262 mg/dL, which is significantly higher (P < .001) than levels recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE). There was a statistically significant relationship (P = .007) between time-to-fasting euglycemia and length of hospital stay. Implementation of the standardized insulin protocol did not improve the achievement of fasting euglycemia (P = .753). Most patients never reached the target glucose level goals despite the use of standardized protocol.ConclusionSignificant delays in initiating the insulin protocol and frequent failure in achieving target glucose levels demonstrate delayed recognition of hyperglycemia by hospital staff as well as ineffective use of standardized insulin protocols. Protocol improvement and increased hospital staff education concerning appropriate hospital target glucose levels are required to achieve ADA/ACE recommendations in small community hospitals. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:50-57)     

Evolving Approaches in Managing Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

ObjectiveTo discuss the approach to care of patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), in particular those with radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory disease, and the transition to systemic treatment.MethodsA PubMed search was conducted using the search terms “radioactive iodine-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer and treatment” restricted to a 2000-2012 timeframe, English language, and humans. Relevant articles were identified from the bibliographies of selected references. Four patient cases are presented to illustrate the clinical course of RAI-refractory DTC.ResultsThe current standard of care for early stage DTC could include surgery, RAI in some cases, and thyroid hormone suppression. For advanced RAI-refractory DTC, clinical practice guidelines established by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Thyroid Association recommend, as one option, the use of systemic therapy, including kinase inhibitors. Numerous trials are underway to evaluate the clinical benefit of these targeted therapies.ConclusionPreliminary results are encouraging with respect to the clinical benefit of targeted systemic therapies. However, at present there is no consensus on the criteria that define RAI-refractory disease and the optimal timing for transition to systemic therapy. There remains a need to establish common criteria to enhance patient care and enable better comparison across clinical studies. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:263-275)     

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     

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)     

临床科室医疗设备监督管理体系的建立与实施

????? 目的 设计一套医院医疗设备监督管理体系,实现对医院临床科室医疗设备的标准化、规范化、统一化管理。方法 结合企业最新、最实用的管理方法,提出医院医学工程科有效开展临床科室医疗设备管理的新方法。结果 制订并实施医院临床科室医疗设备监督管理体系。结论 体系的引入,可以有效改善医疗设备的质量管理,确保医疗器械使用的安全性、可靠性、合法性,使医患双方的合法利益都得到保护,从而提高医院医学工程科管理效能。     

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements in Oncology – An Assessment of Their Methodological Quality

BackgroundConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine’s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.MethodsConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine''s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.FindingsThirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal’s consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases.ConclusionGuidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor’s product to enhance transparency.     

Individualization Through Standardization: Electronic Orders for Subcutaneous Insulin in the Hospital

ObjectiveThe objective was to design electronic order sets that would promote safe, effective, and individualized order entry for subcutaneous insulin in the hospital, based on a review of best practices.MethodsSaint Francis Hospital in Evanston, Illinois, a community teaching hospital, was selected as the pilot site for 6 hospitals in the Health Care System to introduce an electronic medical record. Articles dealing with man agement of hospital hyperglycemia, medical order entry systems, and patient safety were reviewed selectively.ResultsIn the published literature on institutional glycemic management programs and insulin order sets, features were identified that improve safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous insulin therapy. Subcutaneous electronic insulin order sets were created, designated in short: “patients eating”, “patients not eating”, and “patients receiving overnight enteral feedings.” Together with an option for free text entry, menus of administra tion instructions were designed within each order set that were applicable to specific insulin orders and expressed in standardized language, such as “hold if tube feeds stop” or “do not withhold.”ConclusionTwo design features are advocated for electronic order sets for subcutaneous insulin that will both standardize care and protect individualization. First, within the order sets, the glycemic management plan should be matched to the carbohydrate exposure of the patients, with juxtaposition of appropriate orders for both glucose monitoring and insulin. Second, in order to convey precautions of insulin use to pharmacy and nursing staff, the prescriber must be able to attach administration instructions to specific insulin orders. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:976-987)     

中西医结合医院临床科室医疗质量评价体系的构建与实施

目的 探索提高中西医结合医院医疗质量的有效途径。方法 建立并实施中西医结合医院临床科室医疗质量评价体系。结果 对医院业务发展以及质量改善起到积极的推动作用。结论 实施临床科室医疗质量评价体系是提高中西医结合医院医疗质量的较好方法。     

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     

临床决策支持知识库研究

目的 运用知识管理的理念和方法,探讨切合实际应用的临床决策支持知识库概念模型,使医院能够通过知识管理提升其核心竞争力。方法 收集国内外相关资料,系统化研究及分析具有人工智能的临床决策支持知识库的框架。结果 实施医院知识管理的关键就是必须建立一个动态的,并具有自我学习能力的临床决策支持知识库,该知识库不仅需要通过医院信息系统收集传统的医学知识,而且需要建立用于临床指南等的标准医学知识收集的引擎和隐性知识转化模型,并嵌入智能化工具,通过知识库的自我学习功能,保证其动态更新和智能化的临床决策支持能力。结论 医院知识库创建过程实质也是医院价值的创造过程,智能化的临床决策支持知识库开发不仅涉及知识的收集和处理, 还包括知识的表达,人工智能技术的嵌入和各种规则、条件及分类方法等的应用,有待进一步研究。     

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)     

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)     

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 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.     

Glycemic Control After Hospital Discharge in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Pilot Study of Daily Remote Glucose Monitoring

ObjectiveLittle is known about glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients treated with insulin in the high-risk period between hospital discharge and follow-up. We sought to assess the impact of remote glucose monitoring on postdischarge glycemic control and insulin titration.MethodsWe randomly assigned 28 hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients who were discharged home on insulin therapy to routine specialty care (RSC) or RSC with daily remote glucose monitoring (RGM). We compared the primary outcome of mean blood glucose and exploratory outcomes of hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia rates, change in hemoglobin A_1c and glycated albumin, and insulin titration frequency between groups.ResultsMean blood glucose was not significantly different between the treatment arms (144 ± 34 mg/dL in the RSC group and 172 ± 41 mg/dL in the RGM group; not significant), nor were there significant differences in any of the other measures of glycemia during the month after discharge. Hypoglycemia (glucometer reading < 60 mg/dL) was common, occurring in 46% of subjects, with no difference between groups. In as-treated analysis, insulin dose adjustments (29% with an increase and 43% with decrease in insulin dose) occurred more frequently in the patients who used RGM (average of 2.8 vs. 1.2 dose adjustments; P = .03).ConclusionIn this pilot trial in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, RGM did not affect glycemic control after hospital discharge; however, the high rate of hypoglycemia in the postdischarge transition period and the higher frequency of insulin titration in patients who used RGM suggest a safety role for such monitoring in the transition from hospital to home. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:115-121)     

Development and Validation of a Novel Tool to Predict Hospital Readmission Risk Among Patients with Diabetes

Objective: To develop and validate a tool to predict the risk of all-cause readmission within 30 days (30-d readmission) among hospitalized patients with diabetes.Methods: A cohort of 44,203 discharges was retrospectively selected from the electronic records of adult patients with diabetes hospitalized at an urban academic medical center. Discharges of 60% of the patients (n = 26,402) were randomly selected as a training sample to develop the index. The remaining 40% (n = 17,801) were selected as a validation sample. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to develop the Diabetes Early Readmission Risk Indicator (DERRI™).Results: Ten statistically significant predictors were identified: employment status; living within 5 miles of the hospital; preadmission insulin use; burden of macrovascular diabetes complications; admission serum hematocrit, creatinine, and sodium; having a hospital discharge within 90 days before admission; most recent discharge status up to 1 year before admission; and a diagnosis of anemia. Discrimination of the model was acceptable (C statistic 0.70), and calibration was good. Characteristics of the validation and training samples were similar. Performance of the DERRI™ in the validation sample was essentially unchanged (C statistic 0.69). Mean predicted 30-d readmission risks were also similar between the training and validation samples (39.3% and 38.7% in the highest quintiles).Conclusion: The DERRI™ was found to be a valid tool to predict all-cause 30-d readmission risk of individual patients with diabetes. The identification of high-risk patients may encourage the use of interventions targeting those at greatest risk, potentially leading to better outcomes and lower healthcare costs.Abbreviations:DERRI™ = Diabetes Early Readmission Risk IndicatorICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical ModificationGEE = generalized estimating equationsROC = receiver operating characteristic     

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