Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Diabet Med ; 39(4): e14755, 2022 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550817

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid implementation of remote care delivery in type 1 diabetes. We studied current modes of care delivery, healthcare professional experiences and impact on insulin pump training in type 1 diabetes care in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The UK Diabetes Technology Network designed a 48-question survey aimed at healthcare professionals providing care in type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three healthcare professionals (48% diabetes physicians, 52% diabetes educators and 88% working in adult services) from approximately 75 UK centres (52% university hospitals, 46% general and community hospitals), responded to the survey. Telephone consultations were the main modality of care delivery. There was a higher reported time taken for video consultations versus telephone (p < 0.001). Common barriers to remote consultations were patient familiarity with technology (72%) and access to patient device data (67%). We assessed the impact on insulin pump training. A reduction in total new pump starts (73%) and renewals (61%) was highlighted. Common barriers included patient digital literacy (61%), limited healthcare professional experience (46%) and time required per patient (44%). When grouped according to size of insulin pump service, pump starts and renewals in larger services were less impacted by the pandemic compared to smaller services. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights UK healthcare professional experiences of remote care delivery. While supportive of virtual care models, a number of factors highlighted, especially patient digital literacy, need to be addressed to improve virtual care delivery and device training.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Personal de Salud , Automanejo/educación , Telemedicina , Adulto , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Tecnología Biomédica/educación , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/instrumentación , Atención a la Salud/métodos , Atención a la Salud/organización & administración , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangre , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/epidemiología , Control Glucémico/instrumentación , Personal de Salud/organización & administración , Personal de Salud/psicología , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Pandemias , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/métodos , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/organización & administración , Consulta Remota/métodos , Consulta Remota/organización & administración , Automanejo/métodos , Automanejo/psicología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Telemedicina/métodos , Telemedicina/organización & administración , Telemedicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Reino Unido/epidemiología
2.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 12: 703905, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376692

RESUMEN

Importance: There is no consensus on the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the US. Aim: To determine the impact of the pandemic lockdown of March 15th through July 6th, 2020 on glycemic control after controlling for confounders. Subjects and Methods: An observational study of 110 subjects of mean age 14.8 ± 4.9 years(y), [male 15.4 ± 4.0y, (n=57); female 14.1 ± 3.8y, (n=53), p=0.07] with T1D of 6.31 ± 4.3y (95% CI 1.0-19.7y). Data were collected at 1-4 months before the lockdown and 1-4 months following the lifting of the lockdown at their first post-lockdown clinic visit. Results: There was no significant change in A1c between the pre- and post-pandemic lockdown periods, 0.18 ± 1.2%, (95% CI -0.05 to 0.41), p=0.13. There were equally no significant differences in A1c between the male and female subjects, -0.16 ± 1.2 vs -0.19 ± 1.2%, p=0.8; insulin pump users and non-pump users, -0.25 ± 1.0 vs -0.12 ± 1.4%, p=0.5; and pubertal vs prepubertal subjects, 0.18 ± 1.3 vs -0.11 ± 0.3%, p=0.6. The significant predictors of decrease in A1c were pre-lockdown A1c (p<0.0001) and the use of CGM (p=0.019). The CGM users had significant reductions in point-of-care A1c (0.4 ± 0.6%, p=0.0012), the CGM-estimated A1c (p=0.0076), mean glucose concentration (p=0.022), a significant increase in sensor usage (p=0.012), with no change in total daily dose of insulin (TDDI). The non-CGM users had significantly increased TDDI (p<0.0001) but no change in HbA1c, 0.06 ± 1.8%, p=0.86. Conclusions: There was no change in glycemic control during the pandemic lockdown of 2020 in US children.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangre , Control Glucémico , Cuarentena , Adolescente , Factores de Edad , Glucemia/metabolismo , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/instrumentación , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/métodos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Niño , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/organización & administración , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Femenino , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Control Glucémico/instrumentación , Control Glucémico/métodos , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Masculino , Pandemias , Cuarentena/organización & administración , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA