PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a computer-generated blood glucose (BG) alert, generated by a Patient Data Management System (PDMS) and superimposed on a paper-based guideline, on tight glycemic control (TGC) in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: TGC in the Leuven University Hospitals is performed by nurses using a paper-based guideline that allows anticipative, intuitive decision-making. An electronic alert was implemented on 1 August 2007 in which a pop-up appears in the PDMS at the following BG thresholds: >180, >110, 60-80, 40-60 and <40 mg/dl. The impact of this electronic alert was assessed by a sequential cohort study: the mean BG, the glycemic penalty index (GPI), the hyperglycemic index (HGI), the number of hypoglycemic events, the standard deviation (SD) of the BG time series and the number of BG measurements were compared in all adults admitted 6 months before ('pre-alert group', n = 729) and after ('alert group', n = 644) the implementation of the electronic alert. RESULTS: The alert resulted in a reduction of mean BG (112 vs. 110 mg/dl, p = 0.002), GPI (20 vs. 19, p = 0.029) and HGI (10 vs. 9 mg/dl, p = 0.004), without increasing BG sampling (median 25 measurements/patient in both groups, p = 0.776). The alert reduced the proportion of patients experiencing an episode of hypoglycemia from 6.5 to 4.0% (p = 0.043). The SD of the BG time series was not affected (28 mg/dl in both groups, p = 0.566). CONCLUSION: A computer-generated alert was able to statistically significantly improve the quality of TGC in ICU patients without increasing the need for blood sampling.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a computer-generated blood glucose (BG) alert, generated by a Patient Data Management System (PDMS) and superimposed on a paper-based guideline, on tight glycemic control (TGC) in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: TGC in the Leuven University Hospitals is performed by nurses using a paper-based guideline that allows anticipative, intuitive decision-making. An electronic alert was implemented on 1 August 2007 in which a pop-up appears in the PDMS at the following BG thresholds: >180, >110, 60-80, 40-60 and <40 mg/dl. The impact of this electronic alert was assessed by a sequential cohort study: the mean BG, the glycemic penalty index (GPI), the hyperglycemic index (HGI), the number of hypoglycemic events, the standard deviation (SD) of the BG time series and the number of BG measurements were compared in all adults admitted 6 months before ('pre-alert group', n = 729) and after ('alert group', n = 644) the implementation of the electronic alert. RESULTS: The alert resulted in a reduction of mean BG (112 vs. 110 mg/dl, p = 0.002), GPI (20 vs. 19, p = 0.029) and HGI (10 vs. 9 mg/dl, p = 0.004), without increasing BG sampling (median 25 measurements/patient in both groups, p = 0.776). The alert reduced the proportion of patients experiencing an episode of hypoglycemia from 6.5 to 4.0% (p = 0.043). The SD of the BG time series was not affected (28 mg/dl in both groups, p = 0.566). CONCLUSION: A computer-generated alert was able to statistically significantly improve the quality of TGC in ICU patients without increasing the need for blood sampling.
Authors: Joseph J DuBose; Shirley Nomoto; Liliana Higa; Ramona Paolim; Pedro G R Teixeira; Kenji Inaba; Demetrios Demetriades; Howard Belzberg Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 3.072
Authors: Kupper A Wintergerst; Bruce Buckingham; Laura Gandrud; Becky J Wong; Saraswati Kache; Darrell M Wilson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Dirk Vlasselaers; Ilse Milants; Lars Desmet; Pieter J Wouters; Ilse Vanhorebeek; Ingeborg van den Heuvel; Dieter Mesotten; Michael P Casaer; Geert Meyfroidt; Catherine Ingels; Jan Muller; Sophie Van Cromphaut; Miet Schetz; Greet Van den Berghe Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nils Kucher; Sophia Koo; Rene Quiroz; Joshua M Cooper; Marilyn D Paterno; Boris Soukonnikov; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Naeem A Ali; James M O'Brien; Kathleen Dungan; Gary Phillips; Clay B Marsh; Stanley Lemeshow; Alfred F Connors; Jean-Charles Preiser Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alan H Morris; James Orme; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; Colin Grissom; Kang H Lee; Guoliang L Li; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Mark Tidswell; Gordon R Bernard; Dean Sorenson; Katherine Sward; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Homer Warner Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Yaseen M Arabi; Ousama C Dabbagh; Hani M Tamim; Abdullah A Al-Shimemeri; Ziad A Memish; Samir H Haddad; Sofia J Syed; Hema R Giridhar; Asgar H Rishu; Mouhamad O Al-Daker; Salim H Kahoul; Riette J Britts; Maram H Sakkijha Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Saeid Eslami; Nicolette F de Keizer; Evert de Jonge; Marcus J Schultz; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: Crit Care Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Philippe Lachance; Pierre-Marc Villeneuve; Oleksa G Rewa; Francis P Wilson; Nicholas M Selby; Robin M Featherstone; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Mohammad M Ghassemi; Stefan E Richter; Ifeoma M Eche; Tszyi W Chen; John Danziger; Leo A Celi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J Randall Curtis; Daniel De Backer; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nestoras Mathioudakis; Moeen Aboabdo; Mohammed S Abusamaan; Christina Yuan; LaPricia Lewis Boyer; Scott J Pilla; Erica Johnson; Sanjay Desai; Amy Knight; Peter Greene; Sherita H Golden Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2021-11-26