Safely Converting an Entire Academic Medical Center From Sliding Scale to Basal Bolus Insulin via Implementation of the eGlycemic Management System.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperglycemia is common in the inpatient setting and providers frequently rely on sliding scale insulin. This case study reviews the experience of one hospital moving from high utilization of sliding scale to basal bolus insulin therapy. METHOD: This Retrospective Quality Improvement Study describes the journey of clinicians at a 580-bed hospital to convert from high usage of SSI to BBI. Hyperglycemic adult patients prescribed insulin, with/without a diagnosis of diabetes, were included. RESULTS: Data over the first year showed that patients treated with Glucommander (GM) spent more time in the target range of 70-180 mg/dL than patients treated with non-Glucommander (non-GM), with 2,434 fewer hypoglycemic events and 40,589 fewer hyperglycemic events. Prior to implementation of GM, SSI was close to 95%, BBI at 5%. Within the first month of use, 96% usage of BBI was achieved. Reduction of hypoglycemic events (% of BG < 70 mg/dL) by 21% with 2.16% non-GM compared to GM at 1.74% and severe Hypoglycemia (% of BG < 50 mg/dL) by 50% in the ICU 3% non-GM compared to GM at 1.5%. In addition, patients treated with GM had a shorter LOS than patients treated with non-GM by 3.18 days and used 47.4% less point of care tests per patient. CONCLUSION: Glycemic management improved with use of eGMS. The conversion from SSI to BBI enhanced overall patient safety, eliminated the time and effort otherwise required when manually titrating insulin and reduced overall cost of care for patients on insulin therapy.

Comparison of an Electronic Glycemic Management System Versus Provider-Managed Subcutaneous Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in the Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend a basal bolus correction insulin regimen as the preferred method of treatment for non-critically ill hospitalized patients. However, achieving ADA glucose targets safely, without hypoglycemia, is challenging. In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of basal bolus subcutaneous (SubQ) insulin therapy managed by providers compared to a nurse-directed Electronic Glycemic Management System (eGMS). METHOD: This retrospective crossover study evaluated 993 non-ICU patients treated with subcutaneous basal bolus insulin therapy managed by a provider compared to an eGMS. Analysis compared therapy outcomes before Glucommander (BGM), during Glucommander (DGM), and after Glucommander (AGM) for all patients. The blood glucose (BG) target was set at 140-180 mg/dL for all groups. The safety of each was evaluated by the following: (1) BG averages, (2) hypoglycemic events <40 and <70 mg/dL, and (3) percentage of BG in target. RESULT: Percentage of BG in target was BGM 47%, DGM 62%, and AGM 36%. Patients' BGM BG average was 195 mg/dL, DGM BG average was 169 mg/dL, and AGM BG average was 174 mg/dL. Percentage of hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL was 2.6% BGM, 1.9% DGM, and 2.8% AGM treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients using eGMS in the DGM group achieved improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL and <70 mg/dl) compared to both BGM and AGM management with standard treatment. These results suggest that an eGMS can safely maintain glucose control with less hypoglycemia than basal bolus treatment managed by a provider.

Assessing electronic health record phenotypes against gold-standard diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of 8 electronic health record (EHR)-based phenotypes for diabetes mellitus against gold-standard American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria via chart review by clinical experts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified EHR-based diabetes phenotype definitions that were developed for various purposes by a variety of users, including academic medical centers, Medicare, the New York City Health Department, and pharmacy benefit managers. We applied these definitions to a sample of 173 503 patients with records in the Duke Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and at least 1 visit over a 5-year period (2007-2011). Of these patients, 22 679 (13%) met the criteria of 1 or more of the selected diabetes phenotype definitions. A statistically balanced sample of these patients was selected for chart review by clinical experts to determine the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes in the sample. RESULTS: The sensitivity (62-94%) and specificity (95-99%) of EHR-based type 2 diabetes phenotypes (compared with the gold standard ADA criteria via chart review) varied depending on the component criteria and timing of observations and measurements. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Researchers using EHR-based phenotype definitions should clearly specify the characteristics that comprise the definition, variations of ADA criteria, and how different phenotype definitions and components impact the patient populations retrieved and the intended application. Careful attention to phenotype definitions is critical if the promise of leveraging EHR data to improve individual and population health is to be fulfilled.

Patient Self-Management of Diabetes Care in the Inpatient Setting: Pro.

Patients should be allowed to manage their diabetes in the hospital. Diabetes mellitus is a common and sometimes difficult to control medical issue in hospitalized patients. Oftentimes patients who have been controlling their diabetes well as an outpatient are not allowed to continue this management on the inpatient setting, which can lead to hypo- and hyperglycemia. Involving the patient in his or her diabetes care, including self-management in select patients, may provide a safe and effective way of improving glycemic control and patient satisfaction. This may particularly benefit the dosing and coordination of meal-time.

Managing hyperglycemia and diabetes in patients receiving enteral feedings: A health system approach.

Evidence of poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia has led to new and revised guidelines for inpatient management of diabetes. As providers become more aware of the need for better blood glucose control, they are finding limited guidance in the management of patients receiving enteral nutrition. To address the lack of guidelines in this population, Duke University Health System has developed a consistent practice for managing such patients. Here, we present our practice strategies for insulin use in patients receiving enteral nutrition. Essential factors include assessing the patients' history of diabetes, hyperglycemia, or hypoglycemia and timing and type of feedings. Insulin practices are then designed to address these issues keeping in mind patient safety in the event of abrupt cessation of nutrition. The outcome of the process is a consistent and safe method for glucose control with enteral nutrition.

Weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes starting basal insulin therapy: correlates and impact on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: An increase in body weight is a commonly perceived effect of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and this may serve as a barrier to insulin initiation and usage. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the baseline clinical and demographic factors associated with weight gain during insulin glargine therapy, and the implications of weight change on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patient-level data from phase 3 or 4 randomized controlled, treat-to-target (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≤ 100 mg/dL) trials evaluating basal insulin glargine for ≥ 24 weeks. The Pearson correlation coefficient and Cochran-Armitage trend statistic were used to calculate the existence of a trend between absolute and relative weight change, and relative glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline; likelihood of achieving target HbA1c < 7.0%; change from baseline FPG; insulin dose requirements; incidence of hypoglycemia; and adverse events. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, encompassing a total of 2140 patients. Patients starting insulin glargine treatment gained a mean ± standard deviation 1.8 ± 3.7 kg (4.0 ± 8.2 lb). Most patients had limited weight change (± 2.5 kg or 5.5 lb). Younger age, higher baseline HbA1c, and higher baseline FPG were predictive of greater weight gain (P < 0.0001). Those who gained more weight experienced the largest decrease from baseline in HbA1c and FPG. More weight gain was associated with higher insulin dose requirements, an increased risk of experiencing either symptomatic or glucose-confirmed (< 70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia, and more adverse events. Older patients (> 65 years) were less likely to gain weight or to experience glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia, but more likely to experience severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patient-level data, most patients had a stable weight (defined as ± 2.5 kg) after 24 weeks of insulin glargine, and weight gain varied with patient demographics. Therefore, insulin glargine can be used in these patient groups with type 2 diabetes without expectation of significant weight gain.

Effectively identifying the inpatient with hyperglycemia to increase patient care and lower costs.

Recent years have seen an increased focus on merging quality care and financial results. This focus not only extends to the inpatient setting but also is of major importance in assuring effective transitions of care from hospital to home. Inducements to meld the 2 factors include tying payment to quality standards, investing in patient safety, and offering new incentives for providers who deliver high-quality and coordinated care. Once seen as the purview of primary care or specific surgical screening programs, identification of patients with hyperglycemia or undiagnosed diabetes mellitus now presents providers with opportunities to improve care. Part of the new focus will need to address the length of stay for patients with diabetes mellitus. These patients are proven to require longer hospital stays regardless of the admission diagnosis. With reducing length of stay as a major objective, efficiency combined with improved quality is the desired outcome. Even with the mounting evidence supporting the benefits of improving glycemic control in the hospital setting, institutions continue to struggle with inpatient glycemic control. Multiple national groups have provided recommendations for blood glucose assessment and glycated hemoglobin testing. This article identifies the key benefits in identifying patients with hyperglycemia and reviews possible ways to identify, monitor, and treat this potential problem area and thereby increase the level of patient care and cost-effectiveness.

Enhancing insulin-use safety in hospitals: Practical recommendations from an ASHP Foundation expert consensus panel.

PURPOSE: Consensus recommendations to help ensure safe insulin use in hospitalized patients are presented. SUMMARY: Insulin products are frequently involved in medication errors in hospitals, and insulin is classified as a high-alert medication when used in inpatient settings. In an initiative to promote safer insulin use, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Research and Education Foundation convened a 21-member panel representing the fields of pharmacy, medicine, and nursing and consumer advocacy groups for a three-stage consensus-building initiative. The panel's consensus recommendations include the following: development of protocol-driven insulin order sets, elimination of the routine use of correction/sliding-scale insulin doses for management of hyperglycemia, restrictions on the types of insulin products stored in patient care areas, and policies to restrict the preparation of insulin bolus doses and i.v. infusions to the pharmacy department. In addition, the panelists recommended that hospitals better coordinate insulin use with meal intake and glucose testing, prospectively monitor the coordination of insulin delivery and rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and provide standardized education and competency assessment for all hospital-based health care professionals responsible for insulin use. CONCLUSION: A 21-member expert panel convened by the ASHP Foundation identified 10 recommendations for enhancing insulin-use safety across the medication-use process in hospitals. Professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and consumer groups can play a critical role in the translation of these recommendations into practice. Rigorous research studies and program evaluations are needed to study the impact of implementation of these recommendations.

Diabetes management and self-care education for hospitalized patients with cancer.

Managing diabetes can be a daunting task for patients with cancer. Empowerment-based diabetes education and motivational interviewing are complementary approaches. Oncology nurses may feel unprepared to teach patients and their families about self-care for diabetes, but they provide individualized information on symptom management of cancer throughout hospitalization and at discharge. The essential self-care issues include food, exercise, medication, blood glucose monitoring, prevention, recognition and treatment of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and when and how to get additional medical and educational support. This patient-centered model of diabetes education differs from the older "compliance" model that covers many universal rules for all patients, which are predetermined by the nurse. Informing nurses about their role in care of patients with cancer and diabetes is critical.

Implementation of a new intravenous insulin method on intermediate-care units in hospitalized patients.

Good blood glucose control in hospitalized adults leads to reduced mortality. Intravenous (IV) insulin has been shown to be an effective way to achieve tight control of blood glucose. Managing IV insulin is a labor-intensive task for nurses and is generally done in intensive care units with high nurse-to-patient ratios. In this 3-month study, intermediate-care general medicine units with a nurse-to-patient ratio of 1 to 5 or 6 were evaluated for effectiveness of monitoring IV insulin. The project, which relied on intensive in-service education, an audit tool, and continuous positive feedback for nurses, yielded positive results.