BACKGROUND: One third of the 21 million Americans with diabetes remain undiagnosed. The emergency department (ED) is a novel setting for diabetes screening. OBJECTIVES: To estimate risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes in the ED. METHODS: This was a cross sectional survey in five Boston EDs. The authors enrolled consecutive adults without known diabetes over two 24-hour periods at each site. The focus was on diabetes risk factors and estimated risk for diabetes on the basis of American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. The authors also examined prior diabetes testing and willingness to participate in ED-based diabetes screening. RESULTS: Six hundred four patients (70% of eligible) were enrolled. On the basis of ADA risk score, 33% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 29% to 37%) were high risk for undiagnosed diabetes, and an additional 42% (95% CI = 38% to 46%) had elevated risk. For example, 58% (95% CI = 54% to 62%) of participants were overweight or obese (body mass index of > or = 25). Among these at-risk participants without prior diabetes testing, 73% (95% CI = 66% to 80%) reported amenability to having additional blood drawn for ED diabetes screening, and 98% (95% CI = 96% to 100%) indicated that they would follow up for confirmation of abnormal screening. CONCLUSIONS: Many ED patients in the study had risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes. Patient attitudes toward ED-based diabetes screening support further exploration of this important and currently underutilized opportunity for public health intervention.
BACKGROUND: One third of the 21 million Americans with diabetes remain undiagnosed. The emergency department (ED) is a novel setting for diabetes screening. OBJECTIVES: To estimate risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes in the ED. METHODS: This was a cross sectional survey in five Boston EDs. The authors enrolled consecutive adults without known diabetes over two 24-hour periods at each site. The focus was on diabetes risk factors and estimated risk for diabetes on the basis of American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. The authors also examined prior diabetes testing and willingness to participate in ED-based diabetes screening. RESULTS: Six hundred four patients (70% of eligible) were enrolled. On the basis of ADA risk score, 33% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 29% to 37%) were high risk for undiagnosed diabetes, and an additional 42% (95% CI = 38% to 46%) had elevated risk. For example, 58% (95% CI = 54% to 62%) of participants were overweight or obese (body mass index of > or = 25). Among these at-risk participants without prior diabetes testing, 73% (95% CI = 66% to 80%) reported amenability to having additional blood drawn for ED diabetes screening, and 98% (95% CI = 96% to 100%) indicated that they would follow up for confirmation of abnormal screening. CONCLUSIONS: Many ED patients in the study had risk factors for undiagnosed diabetes. Patient attitudes toward ED-based diabetes screening support further exploration of this important and currently underutilized opportunity for public health intervention.
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Mary Rosedale; Michael A Pesce; Caroline Juterbock; Navjot Kaur; Joe DePaola; Deborah Goetz; Mark S Wolff; Dolores Malaspina; Ann Danoff Journal: Point Care Date: 2014-12
Authors: Katya L Masconi; Tandi E Matsha; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Rajiv T Erasmus; Andre P Kengne Journal: EPMA J Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: Fernando Gomez-Peralta; Cristina Abreu; Leonor Andreu-Urioste; Ana Cristina Antolí; Carmen Rico-Fontsaré; David Martín-Fernández; Rosa Resina-Rufes; Juan Jesús Pérez-García; Ángela Negrete-Muñoz; Daniel Muñoz-Álvarez; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2016-02-19