ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that poor glycemic control is associated with increased morbidity and length of stay in hospital. There are a wide range of guidelines published, which seek to ensure safe and effective inpatient glycemic control in the hospital setting. However, the implementation of these protocols is limited in practice. In particular, the feasibility of "flash" and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains untested on general wards. METHOD: Scoping Review. RESULTS: If used in the general ward hospital settings, CGM and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems could lead to improved glycemic control, decreased length of stay, and reduced risk of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Potential problems include lack of experience with this technology and costs of sensors. Rapid analysis of glucose measurements can facilitate clinical decision making and therapy adjustment in the hospital setting. In addition, people with diabetes may be empowered to better self-manage their condition in hospital as they have direct access to their glucose data. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are required in which the feasibility, benefits and limitations of FGM and CGM in non-intensive care unit hospital settings are elucidated. We need evidence on which types of hospital wards might benefit from the introduction of this technology and the contexts in which they are less useful. We also need to identify the types of people who are most likely to find FGM and CGM useful for self-management and for which populations they have the most benefit in terms of clinical outcomes and length of stay.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Hyperglycemia , Humans , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods , Blood Glucose , HospitalsABSTRACT
AIM: Report the outcomes of pregnant women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and to identify modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of pregnancy preparedness, pregnancy care and outcomes in the Republic of Ireland from 2015 to 2020 and subsequent multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In total 1104 pregnancies were included. Less than one third attended pre-pregnancy care (PPC), mean first trimester haemoglobin A1c was 7.2 ± 3.6% (55.5 ± 15.7 mmol/mol) and 52% received pre-conceptual folic acid. Poor preparation translated into poorer pregnancy outcomes. Livebirth rates (80%) were comparable to the background population however stillbirth rates were 8.7/1000 (four times the national rate). Congenital anomalies occurred in 42.5/1000 births (1.5 times the background rate). More than half of infants were large for gestational age and 47% were admitted to critical care. Multivariate analyses showed strong associations between non-attendance at PPC, poor glycaemic control and critical care admission (adjusted odds ratio of 1.68 (1.48-1.96) and 1.61 (1.43-1.86), p < 0.05 respectively) for women with type 1 diabetes. Smoking and teratogenic medications were also associated with critical care admission and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes are suboptimal. Significant effort is needed to optimize the modifiable factors identified in this study.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Pregnancy in Diabetics , Cohort Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Ireland/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Pregnancy in Diabetics/epidemiology , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
AIM: To estimate and examine hospitalisation costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in an Irish public hospital. METHODS: A retrospective audit of hospital inpatient admissions over a 5-year period was undertaken, and a wide range of admission-related data were collected for a sample of 7,548 admissions. Hospitalisations were costed using the diagnosis-related group methodology. A series of descriptive, univariate and multivariate regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: The mean hospitalisation cost for Type 1 diabetes was 4,027 and for Type 2 diabetes was 5,026 per admission. Sex, admission type and length of stay were significantly associated with hospitalisation costs for admissions with a primary diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes. Age, admission type, diagnosis status, complications status, discharge destination, length of stay and year were significantly associated with hospitalisation costs for admissions with a primary diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes. Length of stay was associated with higher mean costs, with each additional day increasing Type 1 diabetes costs by 260 (p = 0.001) and Type 2 diabetes by 216 (p < 0.001). Unscheduled admissions were associated with significantly lower costs than elective admissions; 1,578 (p = 0.035) lower for Type 1 diabetes and 2,108 (p < 0.001) lower for Type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents estimates of the costs of diabetes care in the Irish public hospital system and identifies the factors which influence costs for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. These findings may be of interest to patients, the public, researchers and those with influence over diabetes policy and practice in Ireland and internationally.