Hospital Guidelines for Diabetes Management and the Joint Commission-American Diabetes Association Inpatient Diabetes Certification.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission Advanced Inpatient Diabetes Certification Program is founded on the American Diabetes Association's Clinical Practice Recommendations and is linked to the Joint Commission Standards. Diabetes currently affects 29.1 million people in the USA and another 86 million Americans are estimated to have pre-diabetes. On a daily basis at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Medical Center, there are approximately 130-150 inpatients with a diagnosis of diabetes. METHODS: The program encompasses all service lines at MUSC. Some important features of the program include: a program champion or champion team, written blood glucose monitoring protocols, staff education in diabetes management, medical record identification of diabetes, a plan coordinating insulin and meal delivery, plans for treatment of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, data collection for incidence of hypoglycemia, and patient education on self-management of diabetes. RESULTS: The major clinical components to develop, implement, and evaluate an inpatient diabetes care program are: I. Program management, II. Delivering or facilitating clinical care, III. Supporting self-management, IV. Clinical information management and V. performance measurement. The standards receive guidance from a Disease-Specific Care Certification Advisory Committee, and the Standards and Survey Procedures Committee of the Joint Commission Board of Commissioners. CONCLUSIONS: The Joint Commission-ADA Advanced Inpatient Diabetes Certification represents a clinical program of excellence, improved processes of care, means to enhance contract negotiations with providers, ability to create an environment of teamwork, and heightened communication within the organization.

Diabetic Dyslipidemia Review: An Update on Current Concepts and Management Guidelines of Diabetic Dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes and the major source of cost in the care of diabetes. Treatment of dyslipidemia with cholesterol-lowering medications has been shown to decrease cardiovascular events. However, available guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemia often contain significant differences in their recommendations. METHODS: Lipid guidelines from National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology were reviewed. In addition a literature review was performed using PubMed to research diabetic peculiarities to the topic of lipids. RESULTS: Summarized within this article are the aforementioned, commonly-used guidelines as they relate to diabetes, as well as information regarding the diabetic phenotype of dislipidemia and the association between statins and new-onset diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: While the multitude of guidelines and the differences between them may contribute to confusion for practitioners, they are best viewed as tools to help tailor appropriate treatment plans for individual patients.

Limitations of A1c Interpretation.

Hemoglobin A1c is the measurement of glycated hemoglobin and can aid in both the diagnosis and continued management of diabetes mellitus. Accurate glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) measurements are an essential part of decision making in the diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although national standards exist to eliminate technical error with A1c testing, multiple patient conditions can falsely decrease or elevate the A1c. In this review, we discuss the methods to measure A1c and the corresponding conditions that can affect the clinical utility of the test. Conditions that affect the A1c can be either those that impair erythrocyte production or alter the normal process of glycation. Some variation also has been associated with patient ethnicity and even with normal aging. We describe alternatives to A1c testing for the above clinical scenarios in an effort to make the practicing clinician aware of alternatives for glucose evaluation.