Can Smart Pens Help Improve Diabetes Management?

Smart pen technology has evolved over the past decade with new features such as Bluetooth connectivity, bolus dose calculators, and integration with mobile apps and continuous glucose monitors. While similar in appearance to a traditional insulin pen, smart pens have the ability to record and store data of insulin injections. These devices have the potential to transform diabetes management for clinicians, and patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy by improving adherence, glycemic control, and addressing barriers to diabetes management. Smart pens can also highlight the relationship between insulin, food, and physical activity, and provide insight into optimizing insulin regimens. Education of clinicians and patients, and more clinical studies showing the benefits of smart pens and cost-effectiveness, are needed.

External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among older adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

To externally validate the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) in critically ill patients. We selected older adult (≥ 75 years old) hospitalizations receiving mechanical ventilation, using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (January 1, 2016-November 30, 2018). Frailty risk was subcategorized into low-risk (HFRS score < 5), intermediate-risk (score 5-15), and high-risk (score > 15). We evaluated the HFRS to predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and 30-day readmissions, using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Model performance was assessed using the c-statistic, Brier score, and calibration plots. Among 649,330 weighted hospitalizations, 9.5%, 68.3%, and 22.2% were subcategorized as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk for frailty, respectively. After adjustment, high-risk patient hospitalizations were associated with increased risks of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.59 [95% confidence interval [CI] 5.24-5.97], c-statistic 0.694, Brier 0.216) and 30-day readmissions (aOR 1.20 [95% CI 1.13-1.27], c-statistic 0.595, Brier 0.162), compared to low-risk hospitalizations. Conversely, high-risk hospitalizations were inversely associated with in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.46 [95% CI 0.45-0.48], c-statistic 0.712, Brier 0.214). The HFRS was not successfully validated to predict in-hospital mortality in critically ill older adults. While it may predict other outcomes, its use should be avoided in the critically ill.

Defining Minimum Necessary Communication During Care Transitions for Patients on Antihyperglycemic Medication: Consensus of the Care Transitions Task Force of the IPRO Hypoglycemia Coalition.

INTRODUCTION: Antihyperglycemic agents are significant contributors to adverse drug events, responsible for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. Nationally, the rate of serious hypoglycemic events associated with these agents remains high despite widespread efforts to improve drug safety. Transitions of care between healthcare settings can lead to communication challenges between care professionals and increase the risk of adverse drug events. System-based improvements are needed to assure the safe transitions for patients with diabetes who are on antihyperglycemic agents. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus list of requisite elements that should be communicated between care settings during transitions of patients who are prescribed antihyperglycemic agents. METHODS: The Island Peer Review Organization (IPRO) Hypoglycemia Coalition identified suboptimal transitions of care as a barrier to improving patient safety and quality of diabetes care. The Coalition formed a multidisciplinary Task Force with experts in the field of diabetes care. The Task Force created a draft list of requisite communication elements through literature review and deliberation on monthly conference calls. A blinded iterative Delphi process was subsequently performed to generate a consensus list of requisite communication elements that participating experts agreed were necessary to safely and effectively assume the management of patients with diabetes upon care transitions. RESULTS: The Task Force completed a series of four iterative polls from September 2015 to August 2016, resulting in a final list of 22 requisite communication elements (the Diabetes Management Discharge Communication List), with the elements conceptually categorized into three domains: diagnosis and treatment, factors affecting glycemic control or patient risk, and patient self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabetes Management Discharge Communication List provides an initial framework for the development of diabetes-specific resources to improve clinical communication between care settings.