Efficient and safe glycaemic control with basal-bolus insulin therapy during fasting periods in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes using decision support technology: A post hoc analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin therapy in managing glycaemia during fasting periods in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of two prospective, uncontrolled interventional trials that applied electronic decision support system-guided basal-bolus (meal-related and correction) insulin therapy. We searched for fasting periods (invasive or diagnostic procedures, medical condition) during inpatient stays. In a mixed model analysis, patients' glucose levels and insulin doses on days with regular food intake were compared with days with fasting periods. RESULTS: Out of 249 patients, 115 patients (33.9% female, age 68.3 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration 15.1 ± 10.9 years, body mass index 30.1 ± 5.4 kg/m2 , HbA1c 69 ± 20 mmol/mol) had 194 days with fasting periods. Mean daily blood glucose (BG) was lower (modelled difference [ModDiff]: -0.5 ± 0.2 mmol/L, P = .006), and the proportion of glucose values within the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased on days with fasting periods compared with days with regular food intake (ModDiff: +0.06 ± 0.02, P = .005). Glycaemic control on fasting days was driven by a reduction in daily bolus insulin doses (ModDiff: -11.0 ± 0.9 IU, P < .001), while basal insulin was similar (ModDiff: -1.1 ± 0.6 IU, P = .082) compared with non-fasting days. Regarding hypoglycaemic events (BG < 3.9 mmol/L), there was no difference between fasting and non-fasting days (χ2 0.9% vs. 1.7%, P = .174). CONCLUSIONS: When using well-titrated basal-bolus insulin therapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the basal insulin dose does not require adjustment during fasting periods to achieve safe glycaemic control, provided meal-related bolus insulin is omitted and correction bolus insulin is tailored to glucose levels.

GlucoTab-guided insulin therapy using insulin glargine U300 enables glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open, non-controlled single-arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal-bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m2 ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab-suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

Risks in the analogue and digitally-supported medication process and potential solutions to increase patient safety in the hospital: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: In hospital medication errors are common. Our aim was to investigate risks of the analogue and digitally-supported medication process and any potential solutions. METHODS: A mixed methods study including a structured literature search and online questionnaires based on the Delphi method was conducted. First, all risks were structured into main and sub-risks and second, risks were grouped into risk clusters. Third, healthcare experts assessed risk clusters regarding their likelihood of occurrence their possible impact on patient safety. Experts were also asked to estimate the potential for digital solutions and solutions that strengthen the competence of healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Overall, 160 main risks and 542 sub-risks were identified. Main risks were grouped into 43 risk clusters. 33 healthcare experts (56% female, 50% with >20 years professional-experience) ranked the likelihood of occurrence and the impact on patient safety in the top 15 risk clusters regarding the process steps: admission (n = 4), prescribing (n = 3), verifying (n = 1), preparing/dispensing (n = 3), administering (n = 1), discharge (n = 1), healthcare professional competence (n = 1), and patient adherence (n = 1). 28 healthcare experts (64% female, 43% with >20 years professional-experience) mostly suggested awareness building and training, strengthened networking, and involvement of pharmacists at point-of-care as likely solutions to strengthen healthcare professional competence. For digital solutions they primarily suggested a digital medication list, digital warning systems, barcode-technology, and digital support in integrated care. CONCLUSIONS: The medication process holds a multitude of potential risks, in both the analogue and the digital medication process. Different solutions to strengthen healthcare professional competence and in the area of digitalization were identified that could help increase patient safety and minimize possible errors.

Medication errors in type 2 diabetes from patients' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Drug errors pose a major health hazard to a number of patient populations. However, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus seem especially vulnerable to this risk as diabetes mellitus is usually concomitant with various comorbidities and polypharmacy, which present significant risk factors for the occurrence of drug errors. Despite this fact, there is little data on drug errors from patients' perspective. The present survey aimed to examine the viewpoints of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus regarding their experiences with medication errors, the overall treatment satisfaction, and their perceptions on how a medication error was handled in daily hospital routine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inpatients at the Department of Endocrinology and Diabetology of the University Hospital of Graz were included in the survey. Out of 100 patients, one-half had insulin therapy before hospitalization while the other half had no insulin therapy prior to admission. After giving informed consent, patients filled out a questionnaire with 22 items. RESULTS: Independent of their preexisting therapy, 25% of patients already suffered at least one drug error, whereby prescribing a wrong dose seemed to be the most common type of error. Furthermore, 26% of patients in the non-insulin versus 50% in the insulin group (p = 0.084) were convinced that drug errors were addressed honestly by the medical staff, while 54% in the non-insulin versus 80% in the insulin-group (p = 0.061) assumed that adequate measures were taken to prevent drug errors. Finally, 9 out of 10 patients seemed satisfied with their treatment regardless of their diabetes therapy. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The results of the survey clearly showed that patients experienced at least one medication error during hospitalization. However, these errors only rarely led to patient harm. The survey also revealed the value of an honest and respectful doctor-patient relationship regarding patient perception of medication errors and general complaints. Increasing patient awareness on the existing in-hospital error management systems could eliminate treatment-related concerns and create a climate of trust that is essential for effective treatment.

Digital algorithm-guided insulin therapy in home healthcare for elderly persons with type 2 diabetes: A proof-of-concept study.

GlucoTab@MobileCare, a digital workflow and decision support system with integrated basal and basal-plus insulin algorithm was investigated for user acceptance, safety and efficacy in persons with type 2 diabetes receiving home health care by nurses. During a three months study nine participants (five female, age 77 ± 10 years, HbA1c 60 ± 13 mmol/mol (study start) vs. 57 ± 12 mmol/mol (study end) received basal or basal-plus insulin therapy as suggested by the digital system. In total 95% of all suggested tasks (blood glucose (BG) measurements, insulin dose calculations, insulin injections) were performed according to the digital system. Mean morning BG was 171 ± 68 mg/dL in the first study month vs. 145 ± 35 mg/dL in the last study month, indicating a reduced glycemic variability of 33 mg/dL (standard deviation). No hypoglycemic episode < 54 mg/dL occurred. User's adherence was high and the digital system supported a safe and effective treatment. Larger scale studies are needed to confirm findings under routine care. German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00015059.

Limited Documentation and Treatment Quality of Glycemic Inpatient Care in Relation to Structural Deficits of Heterogeneous Insulin Charts at a Large University Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Insulin charts represent a key component in the inpatient glycemic management process. The aim was to evaluate the quality of structure, documentation, and treatment of diabetic inpatient care to design a new standardized insulin chart for a large university hospital setting. METHODS: Historically grown blank insulin charts in use at 39 general wards were collected and evaluated for quality structure features. Documentation and treatment quality were evaluated in a consecutive snapshot audit of filled-in charts. The primary end point was the percentage of charts with any medication error. RESULTS: Overall, 20 different blank insulin charts with variable designs and significant structural deficits were identified. A medication error occurred in 55% of the 102 audited filled-in insulin charts, consisting of prescription and management errors in 48% and 16%, respectively. Charts of insulin-treated patients had more medication errors relative to patients treated with oral medication (P < 0.01). Chart design did support neither clinical authorization of individual insulin prescription (10%), nor insulin administration confirmed by nurses' signature (25%), nor treatment of hypoglycemia (0%), which resulted in a reduced documentation and treatment quality in clinical practice 7%, 30%, 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of charts with variable design characteristics and structural deficits were in use across the inpatient wards. More than half of the inpatients had a chart displaying a medication error. Lack of structure quality features of the charts had an impact on documentation and treatment quality. Based on identified deficits and international standards, a new insulin chart was developed to overcome these quality hurdles.

Evaluation of an implemented new insulin chart to improve quality and safety of diabetes care in a large university hospital: a follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate structure, documentation, treatment quality of a new implemented standardised insulin chart in adult medical inpatient wards at a university hospital. DESIGN: A before-after study (3 to 5 months after implementation) was used to compare the quality of old versus new insulin charts. SETTING: University Hospital Graz, Austria. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals (n=237) were questioned regarding structure quality of blank insulin charts. INTERVENTIONS: A new standardised insulin chart was implemented and healthcare professionals were trained regarding features of this chart. Data from insulinised inpatients were evaluated regarding documentation and treatment quality of filled-in insulin charts (n=108 old insulin charts vs n=100 new insulin charts). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary endpoint was documentation error for insulin administration. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals reported an improved structure quality of the new insulin chart with a Likert type response scale increase in all nine items. Documentation errors for insulin administration (primary endpoint) occurred more often on old than new insulin charts (77% vs 5%, p<0.001). Documentation errors for insulin prescription were more frequent on old insulin charts (100% vs 42%) whereas documentation errors for insulin management rarely occurred in any group (10% vs 8%). Patients of both chart evaluation groups (age: 71±11 vs 71±12 years, 47% vs 42% women, 75% vs 87% type 2 diabetes for old vs new charts, respectively) had a mean of 4±2 good diabetes days. Overall, 26 vs 18 hypoglycaemic episodes (blood glucose (BG) <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL), p=0.28), including 7 vs 2 severe hypoglycaemic episodes (BG <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), p=0.17) were documented on old versus new insulin charts. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a structured documentation form together with training measures for healthcare professionals led to less documentation errors and safe management of glycaemic control in hospitalised patients in a short time follow-up. A rollout at further medical wards is recommended, and sustainability in the long-term has to be demonstrated.

Diabetes Management According to Health Status in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Staying in Geriatric Care Facilities.

BACKGROUND: About 25% of adults >70 years suffer from type 2 diabetes. Due to the heterogeneity of the geriatric population, guidelines emphasize the need to individualize glycemic goals and simplify treatment strategies with the main focus of avoiding hypoglycemia. The aim of this study was to assess glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in geriatric care facilities based on their individual health status. METHODS: 170 medical records of older adults with type 2 diabetes in geriatric care facilities were retrospectively assessed (64.7% female, age 80 ± 9 years; glycated hemoglobin 6.8% ± 3.6% [51 ± 16 mmol/mol]; body mass index 27.9 ± 5.8 kg/m2). Based on the individual health status, patients were allocated to three groups (healthy n = 27, complex n = 86, and poor n = 57). RESULTS: The overall blood glucose (BG) value was highest in the poor health group with 188 ± 47 mg/dL (poor) vs 167 ± 42 mg/dL (complex) vs 150 ± 34 mg/dL (healthy). BG values of 1.6% (poor) vs 2.8% (complex) vs 1.5% (healthy) of patients were below 90 mg/dL. 36.8% (poor) vs 23.4% (complex) vs 18.5% (healthy) of patients received insulin as the main diabetes therapy, but of these only 14.3% (poor) vs 20% (complex) vs 40% (healthy) were treated with basal insulin. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BG values were higher in the poor and complex health group. There were a few low BG values in all groups. Although recommended by international guidelines, basal insulin therapy with its low complexity and low hypoglycemic risk is still underused, especially in the poor health group. Therefore, simplification of diabetes therapy should be considered further.

Safe and Sufficient Glycemic Control by Using a Digital Clinical Decision Support System for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a Routine Setting on General Hospital Wards.

The aim was to investigate the applicability of a clinical decision support system in a real-world inpatient setting for patients with type 2 diabetes on general hospital wards.A total of 150 patients with type 2 diabetes requiring subcutaneous insulin therapy were treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy guided by a decision support system (GlucoTab) providing automated workflow tasks and suggestions for insulin dosing to health care professionals.By using the system, a mean daily blood glucose (BG) of 159 ± 32 mg/dL was achieved. 68.8% of measurements were in the target range (70 to <180 mg/dL). The percentage of BG values <40, <70, and ≥300 mg/dL was 0.02%, 2.2%, and 2.3%, respectively. Health care professionals' adherence to suggested insulin doses and workflow tasks was high (>93% and 91%, respectively).The decision support system facilitates safe and efficacious inpatient diabetes care by standardizing treatment workflow and providing decision support for basal-bolus insulin dosing.

Electronic Diabetes Management System Replaces Paper Insulin Chart: Improved Quality in Diabetes Inpatient Care Processes Due to Digitalization.

BACKGROUND: GlucoTab, an electronic diabetes management system (eDMS), supports healthcare professionals (HCPs) in inpatient blood glucose (BG) management at point-of-care and was implemented for the first time under routine conditions in a regional hospital to replace the paper insulin chart. METHOD: To investigate quality of the eDMS for inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus a monocentric retrospective before-after evaluation was conducted. We compared documentation possibilities by assessing a blank paper chart vs the eDMS user interface. Further quality aspects were compared by assessing filled-in paper charts (n = 106) vs filled-in eDMS documentation (n = 241). HCPs (n = 59) were interviewed regarding eDMS satisfaction. RESULTS: The eDMS represented an improvement of documentation possibilities by offering a more structured and comprehensive user interface compared to the blank paper chart. The number of good diabetes days averaged to a median value of four days in both groups (paper chart: 4.38 [0-7] vs eDMS: 4.38 [0-7] days). Median daily BG was 170 (117-297) mg/dL vs 168 (86-286) mg/dL and median fasting BG was 152 (95-285) mg/dL vs 145 (69-333) mg/dL, and 0.1% vs 0.4% BG values <54 mg/dL were documented. Diabetes documentation quality improved when using eDMS, for example, documentation of ordered BG measurement frequency (1% vs 100%) and ordered BG targets (0% vs 100%). HCPs stated that by using eDMS errors could be prevented (74%), and digital support of work processes was completed (77%). Time saving was noted by 8 out of 11 HCPs and estimated at 10-15 minutes per patient day by two HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The eDMS completely replaced the paper chart, showed comparable glycemic control, was positively accepted by HCPs, and is suitable for inpatient diabetes management.

Study protocol for assessing the user acceptance, safety and efficacy of a tablet-based workflow and decision support system with incorporated basal insulin algorithm for glycaemic management in participants with type 2 diabetes receiving home health care: A single-centre, open-label, uncontrolled proof-of-concept study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes management can be especially complex for older adults who receive health care at home. Thus, international guidelines recommend basal-insulin regimens due to simpler handling and low hypoglycaemia risk. A basal-insulin algorithm (including basal-plus) was developed to also include participant's health status and subsequently implemented into a tablet-based workflow and decision support system, GlucoTab@MobileCare. This study protocol describes a proof-of-concept study to investigate user acceptance, safety and efficacy of the GlucoTab@MobileCare system in participants receiving home health care. METHODS: The open-label, single-centre, uncontrolled study will recruit a maximum of ten participants with insulin treated type-2-diabetes (age ≥18 years) who receive home health care. During a three month study period participants will receive basal- or basal-plus-insulin therapy once daily as suggested by the GlucoTab@MobileCare system. Statistical analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint is the percentage of tasks (BG measurements, insulin dose calculations, insulin injections) that were performed according to GlucoTab@MobileCare suggestions relative to the total of suggested tasks. Secondary endpoints include user acceptance, safety and efficacy parameters. The study was approved by the ethics committee and regulatory authorities. Before obtaining written informed consent, all participants will receive oral and written information about all aspects of the study. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and at diabetes and geriatric conferences. DISCUSSION: Potential implications may be improved quality and safety of basal-insulin therapy in older adults as well as support for health-care-providers in daily routine including evidence-based knowledge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00015059).

A Mobile Computerized Decision Support System to Prevent Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes management requires complex and interdisciplinary cooperation of health care professionals (HCPs). To support this complex process, IT-support is recommended by clinical guidelines. The aim of this article is to report on results from a clinical feasibility study testing the prototype of a mobile, tablet-based client-server system for computerized decision and workflow support (GlucoTab®) and to discuss its impact on hypoglycemia prevention. METHODS: The system was tested in a monocentric, open, noncontrolled intervention study in 30 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The system supports HCPs in performing a basal-bolus insulin therapy. Diabetes therapy, adverse events, software errors and user feedback were documented. Safety, efficacy and user acceptance of the system were investigated. RESULTS: Only 1.3% of blood glucose (BG) measurements were <70 mg/dl and only 2.6% were >300 mg/dl. The availability of the system (97.3%) and the rate of treatment activities documented with the system (>93.5%) were high. Only few suggestions from the system were overruled by the users (>95.7% adherence). Evaluation of the 3 anonymous questionnaires showed that confidence in the system increased over time. The majority of users believed that treatment errors could be prevented by using this system. CONCLUSIONS: Data from our feasibility study show a significant reduction of hypoglycemia by implementing a computerized system for workflow and decision support for diabetes management, compared to a paper-based process. The system was well accepted by HCPs, which is shown in the user acceptance analysis and that users adhered to the insulin dose suggestions made by the system.