The Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Pilot Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention Designed to Reduce Readmission Risk of Adults with Diabetes.

Hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30-day readmission) is a high-priority quality measure and cost target. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program on readmission risk in high-risk adults with diabetes. This was a non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared usual care (UC) to DiaTOHC at a safety-net hospital. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission. Between 16 October 2017 and 30 May 2019, 93 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 14 (31.1%) of 45 DiaTOHC subjects and 15 (32.6%) of 46 UC subjects had a 30-day readmission, while 35.6% DiaTOHC and 39.1% UC subjects had a 30-day readmission or ED visit. The Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.33 (0.13−0.79) 95%CI. At least 93% of subjects were satisfied with key intervention components. Among the 69 subjects with baseline HbA1c >7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 30-day readmission rates were 23.5% (DiaTOHC) and 31.4% (UC) and composite 30-day readmission/ED visit rates were 26.5% (DiaTOHC) and 40.0% (UC). In this subgroup, the Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.21 (0.08−0.58) 95%CI. The DiaTOHC Program may be feasible and may decrease combined 30-day readmission/ED visit risk as well as healthcare costs among patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% (53 mmol/mol).

Some characteristics of hyperglycaemic crisis differ between patients with and without COVID-19 at a safety-net hospital in a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with DKA, hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS), or mixed DKA-HHS and COVID-19 [COVID (+)] to COVID-19-negative (-) [COVID (-)] patients with DKA/HHS from a low-income, racially/ethnically diverse catchment area. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients admitted to an urban academic medical center between 1 March and 30 July 2020. Eligible patients met lab criteria for either DKA or HHS. Mixed DKA-HHS was defined as meeting all criteria for either DKA or HHS with at least 1 criterion for the other diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 82 participants were stratified by COVID-19 status and type of hyperglycaemic crisis [26 COVID (+) and 56 COVID (-)]. A majority were either Black or Hispanic. Compared with COVID (-) patients, COVID (+) patients were older, more Hispanic and more likely to have type 2 diabetes (T2D, 73% vs 48%, p < .01). COVID(+) patients had a higher mean pH (7.25 ± 0.10 vs 7.16 ± 0.16, p < .01) and lower anion gap (18.7 ± 5.7 vs 22.7 ± 6.9, p = .01) than COVID (-) patients. COVID (+) patients were given less intravenous fluids in the first 24 h (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.2 ± 2.4 L, p = .01) and were more likely to receive glucocorticoids (95% vs. 11%, p < .01). COVID (+) patients may have taken longer to resolve their hyperglycaemic crisis (53.3 ± 64.8 vs 28.8 ± 27.5 h, p = .09) and may have experienced more hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (35% vs 19%, p = .09). COVID (+) patients had a higher length of hospital stay (LOS, 14.8 ± 14.9 vs 6.5 ± 6.0 days, p = .01) and in-hospital mortality (27% vs 7%, p = .02). DISCUSSION: Compared with COVID (-) patients, COVID (+) patients with DKA/HHS are more likely to have T2D. Despite less severe metabolic acidosis, COVID (+) patients may require more time to resolve the hyperglycaemic crisis and experience more hypoglycaemia while suffering greater LOS and risk of mortality. Larger studies are needed to examine whether differences in management between COVID (+) and (-) patients affect outcomes with DKA/HHS.

Discussing spirituality with patients: a rational and ethical approach.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine when patients feel that physician inquiry about spirituality or religious beliefs is appropriate, reasons why they want their physicians to know about their spiritual beliefs, and what they want physicians to do with this information. METHODS: Trained research assistants administered a questionnaire to a convenience sample of consenting patients and accompanying adults in the waiting rooms of 4 family practice residency training sites and 1 private group practice in northeastern Ohio. Demographic information, the SF-12 Health Survey, and participant ratings of appropriate situations, reasons, and expectations for physician discussions of spirituality or religious beliefs were obtained. RESULTS: Of 1,413 adults who were asked to respond, 921 completed questionnaires, and 492 refused (response rate = 65%). Eighty-three percent of respondents wanted physicians to ask about spiritual beliefs in at least some circumstances. The most acceptable scenarios for spiritual discussion were life-threatening illnesses (77%), serious medical conditions (74%) and loss of loved ones (70%). Among those who wanted to discuss spirituality, the most important reason for discussion was desire for physician-patient understanding (87%). Patients believed that information concerning their spiritual beliefs would affect physicians' ability to encourage realistic hope (67%), give medical advice (66%), and change medical treatment (62%). CONCLUSIONS: This study helps clarify the nature of patient preferences for spiritual discussion with physicians.