Patricia A Mackey1, Bithika M Thompson2, Mary E Boyle1, Heidi A Apsey3, Karen M Seifert4, Richard T Schlinkert3, Joshua D Stearns5, Curtiss B Cook1. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 2. Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA thompson.bithika@mayo.edu. 3. Division of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Division of Endocrinology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the analysis was to review the effectiveness of a care process model (CPM) developed to guide management of patients on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures. METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess the impact of the CPM on documentation of insulin pump status, glucose monitoring, and safety during the perioperative phase of care. Post-CPM care was compared with management provided before CPM implementation. RESULTS: We reviewed 45 cases on insulin pump therapy in the pre-CPM cohort and 106 in the post-CPM cohort. Demographic characteristics, categories of surgery, and perioperative times were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Recommended hemoglobin A1c monitoring occurred in 73% of cases in the pre-CPM cohort but improved to 94% in the post-CPM group (P < .01). There was a higher frequency of documentation of the insulin pump during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit segments of care in the post- vs pre-CPM periods (all P < .01). The number of cases with intraoperative glucose monitoring increased (57% pre-CPM vs 81% post-CPM; P < .01). Glycemic control was comparable between the 2 CPM periods. Hypoglycemia was rare, with only 3 episodes in the pre-CPM group and 4 in the post-CPM. No adverse events associated with perioperative insulin pump use were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis adds to previous data on use of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period. Some processes require additional attention, but data continue to indicate that a standardized approach to care can lead to a successful and safe transition of insulin pump therapy throughout the perioperative period.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the analysis was to review the effectiveness of a care process model (CPM) developed to guide management of patients on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures. METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess the impact of the CPM on documentation of insulin pump status, glucose monitoring, and safety during the perioperative phase of care. Post-CPM care was compared with management provided before CPM implementation. RESULTS: We reviewed 45 cases on insulin pump therapy in the pre-CPM cohort and 106 in the post-CPM cohort. Demographic characteristics, categories of surgery, and perioperative times were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Recommended hemoglobin A1c monitoring occurred in 73% of cases in the pre-CPM cohort but improved to 94% in the post-CPM group (P < .01). There was a higher frequency of documentation of the insulin pump during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit segments of care in the post- vs pre-CPM periods (all P < .01). The number of cases with intraoperative glucose monitoring increased (57% pre-CPM vs 81% post-CPM; P < .01). Glycemic control was comparable between the 2 CPM periods. Hypoglycemia was rare, with only 3 episodes in the pre-CPM group and 4 in the post-CPM. No adverse events associated with perioperative insulin pump use were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis adds to previous data on use of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period. Some processes require additional attention, but data continue to indicate that a standardized approach to care can lead to a successful and safe transition of insulin pump therapy throughout the perioperative period.
Authors: Curtiss B Cook; Mary E Boyle; Nancy S Cisar; Victoria Miller-Cage; Peggy Bourgeois; Lori R Roust; Steven A Smith; Richard S Zimmerman Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: C J O'Sullivan; N Hynes; B Mahendran; E J Andrews; G Avalos; S Tawfik; A Lowery; S Sultan Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2006-03-31 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: H H H Feringa; R Vidakovic; S E Karagiannis; M Dunkelgrun; A Elhendy; E Boersma; M R H M van Sambeek; P G Noordzij; J J Bax; D Poldermans Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Sarah M Corney; Tamra Dukatz; Solomon Rosenblatt; Barbara Harrison; Robert Murray; Alla Sakharova; Mamtha Balasubramaniam Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-09-01
Authors: Brenda J Leonhardi; Mary E Boyle; Karen A Beer; Karen M Seifert; Marilyn Bailey; Victoria Miller-Cage; Janna C Castro; Peggy B Bourgeois; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-11
Authors: Michael E Halkos; Omar M Lattouf; John D Puskas; Patrick Kilgo; William A Cooper; Cullen D Morris; Robert A Guyton; Vinod H Thourani Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Kathryn E Coan; Andrew B Schlinkert; Brandon R Beck; Danielle J Haakinson; Janna C Castro; Richard T Schlinkert; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Bithika M Thompson; Joshua D Stearns; Heidi A Apsey; Richard T Schlinkert; Curtiss B Cook Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.810