Dawn Corl1, Tom Yin2, May Ulibarri2, Heather Lien1, Tracy Tylee3, Jing Chao3, Brent E Wisse3. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Education, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. 3 Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitals rely on point-of-care (POC) blood glucose (BG) values to guide important decisions related to insulin administration and glycemic control. Evaluation of POC BG in hospitalized patients is associated with measurement and operator errors. Based on a previous quality improvement (QI) project we introduced an option for operators to delete and repeat POC BG values suspected as erroneous. The current project evaluated our experience with deleted POC BG values over a 2-year period. METHOD: A retrospective QI project included all patients hospitalized at two regional academic medical centers in the Pacific Northwest during 2014 and 2015. Laboratory Medicine POC BG data were reviewed to evaluate all inpatient episodes of deleted and repeated POC BG. RESULTS: Inpatient operators choose to delete and repeat only 0.8% of all POC BG tests. Hypoglycemic and extreme hyperglycemic BG values are more likely to be deleted and repeated. Of initial values <40 mg/dL, 58% of deleted values (18% of all values) are errors. Of values >400 mg/dL, 40% of deleted values (5% of all values) are errors. Not all repeated POC BG values are first deleted. Optimal use of the option to delete and repeat POC BG values <40 mg/dL could decrease reported rates of severe hypoglycemia by as much as 40%. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates that operators are frequently able to identify POC BG values that are measurement/operator errors. Eliminating these errors significantly reduces documented rates of severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and has the potential to improve patient safety.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals rely on point-of-care (POC) blood glucose (BG) values to guide important decisions related to insulin administration and glycemic control. Evaluation of POC BG in hospitalized patients is associated with measurement and operator errors. Based on a previous quality improvement (QI) project we introduced an option for operators to delete and repeat POC BG values suspected as erroneous. The current project evaluated our experience with deleted POC BG values over a 2-year period. METHOD: A retrospective QI project included all patients hospitalized at two regional academic medical centers in the Pacific Northwest during 2014 and 2015. Laboratory Medicine POC BG data were reviewed to evaluate all inpatient episodes of deleted and repeated POC BG. RESULTS: Inpatient operators choose to delete and repeat only 0.8% of all POC BG tests. Hypoglycemic and extreme hyperglycemic BG values are more likely to be deleted and repeated. Of initial values <40 mg/dL, 58% of deleted values (18% of all values) are errors. Of values >400 mg/dL, 40% of deleted values (5% of all values) are errors. Not all repeated POC BG values are first deleted. Optimal use of the option to delete and repeat POC BG values <40 mg/dL could decrease reported rates of severe hypoglycemia by as much as 40%. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates that operators are frequently able to identify POC BG values that are measurement/operator errors. Eliminating these errors significantly reduces documented rates of severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and has the potential to improve patient safety.
Authors: Jean-Jacques Nya-Ngatchou; Dawn Corl; Susan Onstad; Tom Yin; Tracy Tylee; Louise Suhr; Rachel E Thompson; Brent E Wisse Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: C Dana Critchell; Vincent Savarese; Amy Callahan; Christine Aboud; Serge Jabbour; Paul Marik Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Arnaud Desachy; Albert C Vuagnat; Aiham D Ghazali; Olivier T Baudin; Olivier H Longuet; Sylvie N Calvat; Valerie Gissot Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: John R Petersen; Donna F Graves; Danyel H Tacker; Anthony O Okorodudu; Amin A Mohammad; Victor J Cardenas Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Etie S Moghissi; Mary T Korytkowski; Monica DiNardo; Daniel Einhorn; Richard Hellman; Irl B Hirsch; Silvio E Inzucchi; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; M Sue Kirkman; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 19.112