Clinical impact of a comprehensive nurse-led discharge intervention on patients being discharged home from an acute medical unit: Randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute medical units have increasingly been implemented in modern healthcare to ensure a fast track for treatment and care, thus increasing the number of patients being discharged. To avoid early readmissions, new approaches to discharging patients from these settings are needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical impact of a comprehensive nurse-led discharge intervention on patients being discharged home from an acute medical unit. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was 30-days hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes were utilisation of healthcare, including contacting emergency departments, the general practitioner or after-hours physicians; patient experience; and health-related quality of life. DESIGN: This study was a non-blinded randomised clinical controlled trial with a 1 year enrolment period from November 2014 to 2015. Group assignment was performed by computer generated codes. SETTING: The setting was a 34-bed acute medical unit at a Danish University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Non-surgical patients aged 18+ with more than one contact to hospitals during the last 12 months were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, patients had to have been discharged home and had a follow-up appointment after discharge. METHODS: The intervention consisted of (1) an assessment of the patient's overall situation, (2) an assessment of their comprehension of discharge recommendations, (3) a simple discharge letter targeting the individual patient's health literacy and (4) a follow-up telephone call 2 days post-discharge. The study was carried out by a research nurse and the 1st author. Data was collected from medical records, registers and questionnaires. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis were performed. RESULTS: In all, 200 participants were enrolled (101 intervention; 99 control). Of these, 17 were excluded due to transfer to another hospital department and 4 did not receive the full intervention, resulting in 86 in the intervention group and 93 in the control group. At 30 days post-discharge, 22/101 (22%) in the intervention group had at least one readmission vs. 19/99 (19%) in the control group. The total number of all-cause readmissions in the follow-up period was 0.28 (SD: 0.67) in the intervention group vs. 0.26 (SD: 0.63) in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics or any of the primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive nurse-led discharge model focusing on the individual patient's situation and needs was not capable of reducing readmissions and healthcare utilisation. No statistically significant effects on quality of life or patients' experiences of the discharge from the acute medical unit were observed.

Objective measurements of activity patterns in people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes demonstrate a sedentary lifestyle.

AIMS: To evaluate physical activity in people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes using objective measures. METHODS: We analysed data from a study aimed at assessing carotid femoral pulse wave velocity in which a piezoelectric accelerometer was worn by 100 people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes and by 100 age- and sex-matched control subjects. Differences in physical activity patterns were investigated. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the people with Type 2 diabetes spent significantly more time engaged in sedentary or lower level activities during the day, with a mean (sd) time of 926 (44) vs 898 (70) min, P < 0.001). This difference remained significant after correction for differences in BMI between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using objective measurements, our findings demonstrate that people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes have a more sedentary lifestyle compared with well-matched controls.

Insulin dose-response studies in severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes--evidence for effectiveness of very high insulin doses.

AIM: To combat diabetic complications strict glycaemic control is desirable in type 2 diabetes, but some patients are severely insulin resistant and it is not known whether high doses of insulin are effective. This study was designed to determine the acute dose-response effects of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe insulin resistance. METHODS: We included eight insulin-resistant (mean insulin dose: 186 IU/day; body mass index: 35) subjects with type 2 diabetes in a single-blinded, randomized crossover study. Each subject was studied on two occasions. On each occasion, subjects underwent two 3-h hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamps. The subjects were randomized to two low-dose insulin infusions (0.5 and 1.5 mU/kg/min in random order) on one occasion and to two high-dose insulin infusions (3.0 and 5.0 mU/kg/min in random order) on another occasion. RESULTS: On all occasions, steady-state glucose infusion rates (SSGIRs) were accomplished and we observed a clear dose-response relationship with GIR values of 0.4 ± 0.2 (s.e.), 2.6 ± 0.6, 3.7 ± 0.8 and 4.9 ± 0.9 mg/kg/min during the 0.5, 1.5, 3.0 and 5.0 mU/kg/min insulin infusions, respectively (p < 0.001). Likewise, there was a dose-dependent suppression of endogenous glucose production (EGP) (p < 0.009), plasma free fatty acids (FFAs) (p < 0.001) and plasma glucagon (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the insulin dose response in terms of GIR and EGP is preserved for insulin doses corresponding to >800 IU/day, suggesting effectiveness of very high insulin doses in severely insulin-resistant subjects.