RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Diabetes inpatient specialist services vary across the country, with limited evidence to guide service delivery. Currently, referrals to diabetes inpatient specialists are usually 'reactive' after diabetes-related events have taken place, which are associated with an increased risk of morbidity/mortality and increased length of hospital stay. We propose that a proactive diabetes review model of care, delivered by diabetes inpatient specialist nurses, may contribute to the prevention of such diabetes-related events and result in a reduction in the risk of harm. METHOD: We will conduct a cluster randomised feasibility study with process evaluation. The proactive diabetes review model (PDRM) is a complex intervention that focuses on the prevention of potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms. All eligible patients will receive a comprehensive, structured diabetes review that aims to identify and prevent potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms through utilising a standardised review structure. Reviews are undertaken by a diabetes inpatient specialist nurse within one working day of admission. This differs from usual care where patients are often only seen after diabetes-related harms have taken place. The trial duration will be approximately 32 weeks, with intervention delivery throughout. There will be an initial 8-week run-in phase, followed by a 24-week data collection phase. Eight wards will be equally randomised to either PDRM or usual care. Adult patients with a known diagnosis of diabetes admitted to an included ward will be eligible. Data collection will be limited to that typically collected as part of usual care. Data collected will include descriptive data at both the ward and patient level and glucose measures, such as frequency and results of capillary glucose testing, ketonaemia and hypoglycaemic events. The analysis aims to determine the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of a future definitive trial. Whilst this study is primarily about trial feasibility, the findings of the process evaluation may lead to changes to both trial processes and modifications to the intervention. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted in parallel to the trial. A minimum of 22 patients, nurses, doctors, and managers will be recruited with methods including direct non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The feasibility of a future definitive trial will be assessed by evaluating recruitment and randomisation processes, staffing resources and quality of available data. DISCUSSION: The aim of this cluster randomised feasibility trial with a process evaluation is to explore the feasibility of a definitive trial and identify appropriate outcome measures. If a trial is feasible and the effectiveness of PDRM can be evaluated, this could inform the future development of inpatient diabetes services nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network, 51,167. ISRCTN, ISRCTN70402110. Registered on 21 February 2022.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Enteral feeding is commonly used to manage a variety of medical conditions in hospitals. For people with diabetes this can present a specific challenge for glucose management. To address gaps in our understanding of modern enteral feeding outcomes and to help with the development of more specific guidance on maintaining glycaemic control, we conducted a national survey on the management of enteral feeding against the standards in the nationally adopted Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS) guidelines. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using the 2018 JBDS guideline as a template this questionnaire was sent out by email to all 220 UK specialist diabetes teams. Databases of Diabetes UK, the Association of British Diabetologists (ABCD) and the Diabetes Inpatient Specialist Nurse UK Group were used. RESULTS: Twenty-six hospitals responded, 11 had guidelines for the management of insulin with enteral feeding. There were three main feed regimens used: continuous 24-h feeding, a single feed with one break in 24 h, or multiple feeds in 24 h. There were five regimens in common use: premixed insulin, isophane insulin, analogue basal insulin, variable rate intravenous insulin or basal bolus insulin. Overall glucose control was poor for all regimens and combinations. Continuous feed showed better glucose control than a single feed with a break, mean (±SD) glucose 12.4 mmol/L (5.6) versus 15.1 mmol/L (6.9) p < 0.005, but no group showed optimal control. CONCLUSIONS: Managing diabetes control during enteral feeding remains a challenge. Our survey showed that glucose control during this treatment is suboptimal.
