BACKGROUND: Successful control of hyperglycemia has been shown to improve outcomes for diabetes patients in a clinical setting. We assessed the quality of physician-based glycemic management in two general wards, considering the most recent recommendations for glycemic control for noncritically ill patients (<140 mg/dl for premeal glucose). METHODS: Quality of glycemic management of 50 patients in two wards (endocrinology, cardiology) was assessed retrospectively by analyzing blood glucose (BG) levels, the glycemic management effort, and the online questionnaire. RESULTS: Glycemic control was clearly above the recommended target (mean BG levels: endocrinology: 175 ± 62 mg/dl; cardiology: 186 ± 68 mg/dl). When comparing the first half with the second half of the hospital stay, we found no difference in glycemic control (endocrinology: 168 ± 32 vs 164 ± 42 mg/dl, P = .67; cardiology: 174 ± 36 mg/dl vs 170 ± 42 mg/dl, P =.51) and in insulin dose (endocrinology: 15 ± 14 IU vs 15 ± 13 IU per day, P = .87; cardiology: 27 ± 17 IU vs 27 ± 18 IU per day, P = .92), despite frequent BG measurements (endocrinology: 2.7 per day; cardiology: 3.2 per day). A lack of clearly defined BG targets was indicated in the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The recommended BG target range was not achieved in both wards. Analysis of routine glycemic management demonstrated considerable glycemic management effort, but also a lack of translation into adequate insulin therapy. Implementation of corrective measures, such as structured treatment protocols, is essential.
BACKGROUND: Successful control of hyperglycemia has been shown to improve outcomes for diabetespatients in a clinical setting. We assessed the quality of physician-based glycemic management in two general wards, considering the most recent recommendations for glycemic control for noncritically ill patients (<140 mg/dl for premeal glucose). METHODS: Quality of glycemic management of 50 patients in two wards (endocrinology, cardiology) was assessed retrospectively by analyzing blood glucose (BG) levels, the glycemic management effort, and the online questionnaire. RESULTS: Glycemic control was clearly above the recommended target (mean BG levels: endocrinology: 175 ± 62 mg/dl; cardiology: 186 ± 68 mg/dl). When comparing the first half with the second half of the hospital stay, we found no difference in glycemic control (endocrinology: 168 ± 32 vs 164 ± 42 mg/dl, P = .67; cardiology: 174 ± 36 mg/dl vs 170 ± 42 mg/dl, P =.51) and in insulin dose (endocrinology: 15 ± 14 IU vs 15 ± 13 IU per day, P = .87; cardiology: 27 ± 17 IU vs 27 ± 18 IU per day, P = .92), despite frequent BG measurements (endocrinology: 2.7 per day; cardiology: 3.2 per day). A lack of clearly defined BG targets was indicated in the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The recommended BG target range was not achieved in both wards. Analysis of routine glycemic management demonstrated considerable glycemic management effort, but also a lack of translation into adequate insulin therapy. Implementation of corrective measures, such as structured treatment protocols, is essential.
Authors: Stephen Clement; Susan S Braithwaite; Michelle F Magee; Andrew Ahmann; Elizabeth P Smith; Rebecca G Schafer; Irl B Hirsch; Irl B Hirsh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura A D Knecht; Susanne M Gauthier; Janna C Castro; Ronald E Schmidt; Michael D Whitaker; Richard S Zimmerman; Kenneth J Mishark; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Sandra Blitz; Brian H Rowe; Jacques Romney; Thomas J Marrie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Philip A Goldberg; Janis E Bozzo; Prem G Thomas; Melinda M Mesmer; Olga V Sakharova; Martha J Radford; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jennifer M Trujillo; Emily E Barsky; Bonnie C Greenwood; Stephanie A Wahlstrom; Shimon Shaykevich; Merri L Pendergrass; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Stephan Spat; Klaus Donsa; Peter Beck; Bernhard Höll; Julia K Mader; Lukas Schaupp; Thomas Augustin; Franco Chiarugi; Katharina M Lichtenegger; Johannes Plank; Thomas R Pieber Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-11-03
Authors: Katharina M Lichtenegger; Felix Aberer; Alexandru C Tuca; Klaus Donsa; Bernhard Höll; Lukas Schaupp; Johannes Plank; Peter Beck; Friedrich M Fruhwald; Lars-Peter Kamolz; Thomas R Pieber; Julia K Mader Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-11
Authors: Katharina M Neubauer; Julia K Mader; Bernhard Höll; Felix Aberer; Klaus Donsa; Thomas Augustin; Lukas Schaupp; Stephan Spat; Peter Beck; Friedrich M Fruhwald; Christian Schnedl; Alexander R Rosenkranz; David B Lumenta; Lars-Peter Kamolz; Johannes Plank; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 6.118