Clinical management and knowledge of neonatal hypoglycaemia in Germany: A national survey of midwives and nurses.

AIM: Despite being a common metabolic condition, the detection and care of neonatal hypoglycaemia in Germany largely depends on the infant's health-care provider, rather than a national protocol. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate midwives' and nurses' knowledge and management of neonatal hypoglycaemia and to determine the need for national guidelines. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was developed and completed by 127 perinatal nurses and midwives. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney-U, χ2 and Fisher's exact tests were used to summarise and analyse the results. RESULTS: In total, 82% of respondents indicated using guidelines but routine blood glucose screening for neonates at risk for hypoglycaemia was rarely reported (44%). A blood glucose concentration of 2.5 mmol/L (45 mg/dL) was considered the treatment threshold by 52% of the respondents. However, the responses to clinical scenarios showed distinct differences regarding the management of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Finally, 49% of respondents reported insufficient knowledge regarding neonatal hypoglycaemia and 77% indicated that they would advocate the implication of enhanced national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in knowledge about the prevention, screening and management of neonatal hypoglycaemia among nurses and midwives in Germany. Enhanced guidelines and education of health-care professionals are urgently needed to provide the best possible care to all hypoglycaemic newborns.

Oral dextrose gel to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia: Clinician survey.

AIMS: To determine the use of oral dextrose gel to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia in New Zealand (NZ), to identify barriers and enablers to the implementation of the guideline and to determine if there is variation in management between clinical disciplines caring for at-risk babies. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to clinicians (including doctors, midwives and nurses) caring for babies with neonatal hypoglycaemia via stakeholders and maternity hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 251 clinicians from all 20 District Health Boards (DHBs) completed the survey. Of the responding clinicians, 148 (59%) from 15 (75%) DHBs reported oral dextrose gel use in their hospital, and of these, 129 (87%) reported a local guideline. In 12 of 15 (80%) DHBs, oral dextrose gel could be prescribed by midwives. For a clinical scenario of a baby with neonatal hypoglycaemia, doctors were more likely to prescribe oral dextrose gel than midwives (odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 2.9 (2.2-3.8), P < 0.0001). Of 32 possible combinations of treatment options for this scenario, 31 were selected by one or more clinicians. A guideline was perceived to be the most useful enabler, and availability of oral dextrose gel was seen as the most important barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Oral dextrose gel is widely used to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia in NZ. Increasing availability of dextrose gel and the clinical practice guideline are likely to further increase the use of oral dextrose gel.

Comparison of neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes with moderate hyperglycaemia on metformin or glibenclamide--a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Two oral hypoglycaemic agents, metformin and glibenclamide, have been compared with insulin in separate large randomised controlled trials and have been found to be as effective as insulin in gestational diabetes. However, very few trials have compared metformin with glibenclamide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 159 South Indian women with fasting glucose ≥5.5 mmol/l and ≤7.2 mmol/l and/or 2-h post-prandial value ≥6.7 mmol/l and ≤13.9 mmol/l after medical nutritional therapy consented to be randomised to receive either glibenclamide or metformin. 80 women received glibenclamide and 79 received metformin. Neonatal outcomes were assessed by neonatologists who were unaware that the mother was part of a study and were recorded by assessors blinded to the medication the mother was given. The primary outcome was a composite of neonatal outcomes namely macrosomia, hypoglycaemia, need for phototherapy, respiratory distress, stillbirth or neonatal death and birth trauma. Secondary outcomes were birthweight, maternal glycaemic control, pregnancy induced hypertension, preterm birth, need for induction of labour, mode of delivery and complications of delivery. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar but for the higher fasting triglyceride levels in women on metformin. The primary outcome was seen in 35% of the glibenclamide group and 18.9% of the metformin group [95% CI 16.1 (2.5, 29.7); P = 0.02]. The difference in outcome related to a higher rate of neonatal hypoglycaemia in the glibenclamide group (12.5%) versus none in the metformin group [95% CI 12.5(5.3, 19.7); P = 0.001]. Secondary outcomes in both groups were similar. CONCLUSION: In a south Indian population with gestational diabetes, metformin was associated with better neonatal outcomes than glibenclamide.