BACKGROUND: Inpatient glycemic control is a constant challenge. Institutional insulin management protocols and structured order sets are commonly advocated but poorly studied. Effective and validated methods to integrate algorithmic protocol guidance into the insulin ordering process are needed. METHODS: We introduced a basic structured set of computerized insulin orders (Version 1), and later introduced a paper insulin management protocol, to assist users with the order set. Metrics were devised to assess the impact of the protocol on insulin use, glycemic control, and hypoglycemia using pharmacy data and point of care glucose tests. When incremental improvement was seen (as described in the results), Version 2 of the insulin orders was created to further streamline the process. RESULTS: The percentage of regimens containing basal insulin improved with Version 1. The percentage of patient days with hypoglycemia improved from 3.68% at baseline to 2.59% with Version 1 plus the paper insulin management protocol, representing a relative risk for hypoglycemic day of 0.70 [confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 0.80]. The relative risk of an uncontrolled (mean glucose over 180 mg/dl) patient stay was reduced to 0.84 (CI 0.77, 0.91) with Version 1 and was reduced further to 0.73 (CI 0.66, 0.81) with the paper protocol. Version 2 used clinician-entered patient parameters to guide protocol-based insulin ordering and simultaneously improved the flexibility and ease of ordering over Version 1. CONCLUSION: Patient parameter and protocol-based clinical decision support, added to computerized provider order entry, has a track record of improving glycemic control indices. This justifies the incorporation of these algorithms into online order management.
BACKGROUND: Inpatient glycemic control is a constant challenge. Institutional insulin management protocols and structured order sets are commonly advocated but poorly studied. Effective and validated methods to integrate algorithmic protocol guidance into the insulin ordering process are needed. METHODS: We introduced a basic structured set of computerized insulin orders (Version 1), and later introduced a paper insulin management protocol, to assist users with the order set. Metrics were devised to assess the impact of the protocol on insulin use, glycemic control, and hypoglycemia using pharmacy data and point of care glucose tests. When incremental improvement was seen (as described in the results), Version 2 of the insulin orders was created to further streamline the process. RESULTS: The percentage of regimens containing basal insulin improved with Version 1. The percentage of patient days with hypoglycemia improved from 3.68% at baseline to 2.59% with Version 1 plus the paper insulin management protocol, representing a relative risk for hypoglycemic day of 0.70 [confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 0.80]. The relative risk of an uncontrolled (mean glucose over 180 mg/dl) patient stay was reduced to 0.84 (CI 0.77, 0.91) with Version 1 and was reduced further to 0.73 (CI 0.66, 0.81) with the paper protocol. Version 2 used clinician-entered patient parameters to guide protocol-based insulin ordering and simultaneously improved the flexibility and ease of ordering over Version 1. CONCLUSION:Patient parameter and protocol-based clinical decision support, added to computerized provider order entry, has a track record of improving glycemic control indices. This justifies the incorporation of these algorithms into online order management.
Authors: Alan J Garber; Etie S Moghissi; Edwin D Bransome; Nathaniel G Clark; Stephen Clement; Rhoda H Cobin; Anthony P Furnary; Irl B Hirsch; Philip Levy; Robert Roberts; Greet Van den Berghe; Virginia Zamudio Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: A K Jha; G J Kuperman; J M Teich; L Leape; B Shea; E Rittenberg; E Burdick; D L Seger; M Vander Vliet; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: J J Pomposelli; J K Baxter; T J Babineau; E A Pomfret; D F Driscoll; R A Forse; B R Bistrian Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Miguel Munoz; Peter Pronovost; Joanne Dintzis; Theresa Kemmerer; Nae-Yuh Wang; Yi-Ting Chang; Leigh Efird; Sean M Berenholtz; Sherita Hill Golden Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2012-05
Authors: Adam Wright; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Joshua Feblowitz; Seth Meltzer; Carmit McMullen; Ken Guappone; Jim Carpenter; Joshua Richardson; Linas Simonaitis; R Scott Evans; W Paul Nichol; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nestoras Mathioudakis; Peter J Pronovost; Sara E Cosgrove; Daniel Hager; Sherita Hill Golden Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2015-07
Authors: Caroline Pinto Thirukumaran; James G Dolan; Patricia Reagan Webster; Robert J Panzer; Bruce Friedman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Greg Maynard; Jeffrey Lawrence Schnipper; Jordan Messler; Pedro Ramos; Kristen Kulasa; Ann Nolan; Kendall Rogers Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-05-12