BACKGROUND: GlucoTab, an electronic diabetes management system (eDMS), supports healthcare professionals (HCPs) in inpatient blood glucose (BG) management at point-of-care and was implemented for the first time under routine conditions in a regional hospital to replace the paper insulin chart. METHOD: To investigate quality of the eDMS for inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus a monocentric retrospective before-after evaluation was conducted. We compared documentation possibilities by assessing a blank paper chart vs the eDMS user interface. Further quality aspects were compared by assessing filled-in paper charts (n = 106) vs filled-in eDMS documentation (n = 241). HCPs (n = 59) were interviewed regarding eDMS satisfaction. RESULTS: The eDMS represented an improvement of documentation possibilities by offering a more structured and comprehensive user interface compared to the blank paper chart. The number of good diabetes days averaged to a median value of four days in both groups (paper chart: 4.38 [0-7] vs eDMS: 4.38 [0-7] days). Median daily BG was 170 (117-297) mg/dL vs 168 (86-286) mg/dL and median fasting BG was 152 (95-285) mg/dL vs 145 (69-333) mg/dL, and 0.1% vs 0.4% BG values <54 mg/dL were documented. Diabetes documentation quality improved when using eDMS, for example, documentation of ordered BG measurement frequency (1% vs 100%) and ordered BG targets (0% vs 100%). HCPs stated that by using eDMS errors could be prevented (74%), and digital support of work processes was completed (77%). Time saving was noted by 8 out of 11 HCPs and estimated at 10-15 minutes per patient day by two HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The eDMS completely replaced the paper chart, showed comparable glycemic control, was positively accepted by HCPs, and is suitable for inpatient diabetes management.
BACKGROUND:GlucoTab, an electronic diabetes management system (eDMS), supports healthcare professionals (HCPs) in inpatient blood glucose (BG) management at point-of-care and was implemented for the first time under routine conditions in a regional hospital to replace the paper insulin chart. METHOD: To investigate quality of the eDMS for inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus a monocentric retrospective before-after evaluation was conducted. We compared documentation possibilities by assessing a blank paper chart vs the eDMS user interface. Further quality aspects were compared by assessing filled-in paper charts (n = 106) vs filled-in eDMS documentation (n = 241). HCPs (n = 59) were interviewed regarding eDMS satisfaction. RESULTS: The eDMS represented an improvement of documentation possibilities by offering a more structured and comprehensive user interface compared to the blank paper chart. The number of good diabetes days averaged to a median value of four days in both groups (paper chart: 4.38 [0-7] vs eDMS: 4.38 [0-7] days). Median daily BG was 170 (117-297) mg/dL vs 168 (86-286) mg/dL and median fasting BG was 152 (95-285) mg/dL vs 145 (69-333) mg/dL, and 0.1% vs 0.4% BG values <54 mg/dL were documented. Diabetes documentation quality improved when using eDMS, for example, documentation of ordered BG measurement frequency (1% vs 100%) and ordered BG targets (0% vs 100%). HCPs stated that by using eDMS errors could be prevented (74%), and digital support of work processes was completed (77%). Time saving was noted by 8 out of 11 HCPs and estimated at 10-15 minutes per patient day by two HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The eDMS completely replaced the paper chart, showed comparable glycemic control, was positively accepted by HCPs, and is suitable for inpatient diabetes management.
Authors: Klaus Donsa; Peter Beck; Bernhard Höll; Julia K Mader; Lukas Schaupp; Johannes Plank; Katharina M Neubauer; Christian Baumgartner; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Lukas Schaupp; Klaus Donsa; Katharina M Neubauer; Julia K Mader; Felix Aberer; Bernhard Höll; Stephan Spat; Thomas Augustin; Peter Beck; Thomas R Pieber; Johannes Plank Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 6.118
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: Boris Draznin; Janice Gilden; Sherita H Golden; Silvio E Inzucchi; David Baldwin; Bruce W Bode; Jeffrey B Boord; Susan S Braithwaite; Enrico Cagliero; Kathleen M Dungan; Mercedes Falciglia; M Kathleen Figaro; Irl B Hirsch; David Klonoff; Mary T Korytkowski; Mikhail Kosiborod; Lillian F Lien; Michelle F Magee; Umesh Masharani; Gregory Maynard; Marie E McDonnell; Eti S Moghissi; Neda Rasouli; Daniel J Rubin; Robert J Rushakoff; Archana R Sadhu; Stanley Schwartz; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert A Vigersky; Cecilia C Low; Deborah J Wexler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 19.112
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
Authors: Felix Aberer; Katharina M Lichtenegger; Edin Smajic; Klaus Donsa; Oliver Malle; Judith Samonigg; Bernhard Höll; Peter Beck; Thomas R Pieber; Johannes Plank; Julia K Mader Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-11-11 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Aleeha Iftikhar; Raymond R Bond; Victoria McGilligan; Stephen J Leslie; Khaled Rjoob; Charles Knoery; Ciara Quigg; Ryan Campbell; Kyle Boyd; Anne McShane; Aaron Peace Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2021-05-26