BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional (HCP) time supporting insulin pump therapy (IPT) has not been documented, yet it is important in planning and allocating resources for effective care. AIM: This study aims to determine HCP time spent in IPT patient care to inform resource planning for optimal IPT delivery. METHODS: Twenty-four Australian adult IPT-experienced institutions (14 government funded, seven private, three both) collected data between April 2012 and January 2013 prospectively, including: patient demographics, HCP classification, purpose of HCP-patient interaction, interaction mode and HCP time with the patient. A subset of patients was tracked from pre-pump education until stable on IPT. RESULTS: Data on 2577 HCP-adult patient interactions (62% face-to-face, 29% remote, 9% administrative) were collected over 12.2 ± 6.4 weeks for 895 patients; age 35.4 ± 14.2 years; 67% female; 99% type 1 diabetes, representing 25% of all IPT patients of the institutions. Time (hours) spent on IPT interactions per centre per week were: nurses 5.4 ± 2.8, dietitians 0.4 ± 0.2 and doctors 1.0 ± 0.5. IPT starts accounted for 48% of IPT interaction time. The percentage of available diabetes clinic time spent on outpatient IPT interactions was 20.4%, 4.6% and 2.7% for nurses, dietitians and doctors respectively. Fifteen patients tracked from pre-pump to stabilisation over 11.8 ± 4.5 weeks, required a median (range) of 9.2 (3.0-20.9), 2.4 (0.5-6.0) and 1.8 (0.5-5.4) hours per patient from nurses, dietitians and doctors respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IPT patient care represents a substantial investment in HCP time, particularly for nurses. Funding models for IPT care need urgent review to ensure this now mainstream therapy integrates well into healthcare resources.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional (HCP) time supporting insulin pump therapy (IPT) has not been documented, yet it is important in planning and allocating resources for effective care. AIM: This study aims to determine HCP time spent in IPTpatient care to inform resource planning for optimal IPT delivery. METHODS: Twenty-four Australian adult IPT-experienced institutions (14 government funded, seven private, three both) collected data between April 2012 and January 2013 prospectively, including: patient demographics, HCP classification, purpose of HCP-patient interaction, interaction mode and HCP time with the patient. A subset of patients was tracked from pre-pump education until stable on IPT. RESULTS: Data on 2577 HCP-adult patient interactions (62% face-to-face, 29% remote, 9% administrative) were collected over 12.2 ± 6.4 weeks for 895 patients; age 35.4 ± 14.2 years; 67% female; 99% type 1 diabetes, representing 25% of all IPTpatients of the institutions. Time (hours) spent on IPT interactions per centre per week were: nurses 5.4 ± 2.8, dietitians 0.4 ± 0.2 and doctors 1.0 ± 0.5. IPT starts accounted for 48% of IPT interaction time. The percentage of available diabetes clinic time spent on outpatientIPT interactions was 20.4%, 4.6% and 2.7% for nurses, dietitians and doctors respectively. Fifteen patients tracked from pre-pump to stabilisation over 11.8 ± 4.5 weeks, required a median (range) of 9.2 (3.0-20.9), 2.4 (0.5-6.0) and 1.8 (0.5-5.4) hours per patient from nurses, dietitians and doctors respectively. CONCLUSIONS:IPTpatient care represents a substantial investment in HCP time, particularly for nurses. Funding models for IPT care need urgent review to ensure this now mainstream therapy integrates well into healthcare resources.
Authors: Jenise C Wong; Zara Izadi; Shannon Schroeder; Marie Nader; Jennifer Min; Aaron B Neinstein; Saleh Adi Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Emma S Scott; Rachel T McGrath; Andrzej S Januszewski; Daniel Calandro; Anandwardhan A Hardikar; David N O'Neal; Gregory Fulcher; Alicia J Jenkins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-29 Impact factor: 2.692