Practice of hyperglycaemia control in intensive care units of the Military Hospital, Sudan-Needs of a protocol.

Hyperglycaemia is a major risk factor in critically ill patients leading to adverse outcomes and mortality in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. The target blood glucose remained controversial; this study aimed to contribute in assessing the practice of hyperglycaemia control in intensive care units of the Military Hospital. Furthermore, the study proposed a protocol for hyperglycaemia control based on findings. A hospital-based cross-sectional study assessed the awareness and practice towards hyperglycaemia management in a sample 83 healthcare staff selected through stratified random sampling technique. In addition, 55 patients were enrolled, through quota sampling, after excluding those with diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar-hyperglycaemic state and patients < 18 years. A self-administrated questionnaire enabled to collect data from health staff and patient data were extracted from the medical records. SPSS-23 was used to analyze the collected data. Chi-square and ANOVA tests assessed the association among variables, these tests were considered statistically significant when p ≤ 0.05. The training on hyperglycaemia control differed (p = 0.017) between doctors and nurses. The target glycaemic level (140-180 mg/dl) was known by 11.1% of the study participants. Neither the knowledge nor the practice of hyperglycaemia control methods differed among staff (p> 0.05). The use of sliding scale was prevalent (79.3%) across the ICUs (p = 0.002). 31.5% of the patients had received different glycaemic control methods, 11.8% were in the targeted blood glucose level. Sliding scale was the method used by doctors and nurses (71.4% and 81.6% respectively). Lack of awareness about hyperglycaemia management methods was prevalent among ICU healthcare staff. Use of obsolete methods was the common practice in the ICUS of the Military Hospital. Target blood glucose for patients were unmet. Development of a local protocol for glycaemic control in all ICUs is needed along with sustained training programs on hyperglycaemia control for ICU healthcare staff.

Introduction

Hyperglycaemia is a major risk factor affecting critically ill patients leading to adverse outcomes and a high mortality in diabetic and non-diabetic patients [1-4]. Stressful situations, as acute illness and surgery in particular neurosurgery, elevate the levels of stress hormones and increase hepatic glucose production, lipolysis and insulin resistance [5-7]. The stress cascade increases by 7–8 folds in patients undergoing surgery [8,9] leading to more than three folds increase in post-surgical complications and by six folds for mortality [7]. The target blood glucose (BG) had been controversial. Leuven 1 study was the first landmark clinical trial that revealed the benefits of reduced morbidity and mortality related to intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in surgical critically ill patients [3,10]. However, the second Leuven trial with a higher hypoglycaemia rate, pointed out that in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, there was a no statistically significant difference in mortality rate between tight blood glucose group (80–110 mg/dl) and control group [2,3,10]. In 2009, the practice changed following the publication of the Normoglycaemia in Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation (SUGAR) trial [11]. It revealed that the mortality and the hypoglycaemia increased in the intensive insulin therapy group compared to the conventional group. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis indicated a no difference in outcomes between medical, surgical, diabetic, non-diabetic and septic patients [2,3,7]. With respect to these results, conventional target of < 180 mg/dl was acceptable for most ICU patients [4] and adopted by various professional organizations [2,3,12,13], except the American College of Physicians (ACP) which proposed a higher target of BG (< 200 mg/dl) [14]. These controversial benefits from intensive insulin therapy should not shadow the reduction of complications and length of hospitalization in hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgical patients [15]. Intravenous insulin through infusion pump is the method applied for ICU patients [11,13]. The concomitant use of sub-cutaneous insulin glargine remains more efficacious than insulin infusion alone, in particular in patients with coronary artery bypass graft [16,17].

For policy development, it is crucial to assess the current practice by surveying both healthcare staff and patients to identify barriers and facilitators through a gap analysis to establish the best practice [18]. Regarding hyperglycaemia control policy, the major safety issue remained hypoglycaemia, especially in ICU patients, as the usual symptoms might not be noticed [19]. Hypoglycaemia defines as blood glucose level < 70 mg/dl and severe life threatening when it is < 40 mg/dl [11,20,21].

Protocols were developed as written instructions to prevent the fluctuation in BG due to changes of interventions as administering steroids, vasopressors or parenteral quinine or due to changes in nutrition support [22]. As hyperglycaemia is more prevalent in patients receiving parenteral nutrition [9], BG levels did not differ among eating and non-per oral (NPO) patients [23]. The protocols had differences in their target BG, monitoring frequencies, infusion rates and use of boluses [24]. Hence, they must be customized to suit local resources, staff competency [25] and the needs of patients [25-27]. Examples of these protocols are Portland l, Washington University, and Yale University protocols. Yale Protocol had more difficult calculations than the other protocols [28], however, its hypoglycaemia rate was lower than Leuven protocol [22]. The Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) protocol adopted BG target levels, which were consistent with the NICE-SUGAR target [13].

Alternative approaches to written policies are computerized protocols such as glucommanders [28], star protocol [4] and space glucose control (SGC) system [29]. Although, they reduced the nursing workload and had lower hypoglycaemia rates [21], they had not changed the general practice [27].

This study aimed to assess the practice of healthcare staff towards hyperglycaemia control in intensive care units of the Military Hospital in oder to identify the gaps in knowledge and practice. This study proposed a protocol for hyperglycaemia control from the lessons learned.

Materials and methods

A hospital- based cross-sectional study assessed the awareness, and practice of healthcare staff towards hyperglycaemia management and the burden of hyperglycaemia control based medical records of critically ill patients in the intensive care units of the Military Hospital of Khartoum State, Sudan. The Military Hospital is a complex of seven specialized hospitals totalizing 722 beds and 8 ICUs. A multistage sampling technique was used. At first level, five ICUs were systematically included in the study after excluding the neonatal, the maternity and the medical ICUs the last being under reconstruction. At second level, a stratified random sampling technique enabled to select 83 health professionals (doctors and nurses) proportionally to the size of each ICU after excluding the administrative staff. Regarding the patients included in the study, a quota of 12 patients was fixed to randomly recruit participants from each of the five ICUs. This led to an estimated sample of 60 patients. Fifty-five patients were enrolled in the study after excluding those with either diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) [5] or hyperosmolar hyperglycaemic state (HHS) and patients < 18 years. Patients with DKA or HHS were excluded because the random blood glucose of such patients is extremely high and fluctuating which might lead to inaccurate presentation of the hyperglycemia status in the ICU. However, because of the importance of such disorders, DKA was included in the assessment of the knowledge and practice of healthcare staff. Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire comprising two parts. Part one was a self-administrated questionnaire filled by the healthcare staff working in ICUs to collect their sociodemographic characteristics, their number of years of working experience, their knowledge and practice on hyperglycaemia control methods and levels as well as the management of hyperglycaemia. Part two extracted data from the medical records of ICU patients hospitalized at the time of the data collection. The characteristics of the patients: age, gender, status (medical or surgical), type of hyperglycaemia (diabetes type 1, 2 or non-diabetic), associated comorbidities, methods of blood glucose measurement and levels were recorded. SUMASRI Institutional Review Board of the University of Medical Sciences and Technology reviewed the proposal in an expedited review board and gave the ethical clearance to conduct this study with no ethical restrictions because the study had no any harm to any of the participants because there were no any medical tests or procedure were done specifically for the study, and that the study relied only on the coded responses of doctors and nurses and the coded medical records of the patients without any identity exposure. Ethical Approval was obtained from the Military Hospital, the implementation of the research was granted by the administration of the respective ICUs. Participants (doctors, nurses) were well informed about the research objectives and verbal informed consent was obtained from each one of them and then each participant filled the self-administered questionnaire. Only the participants who approved to participate filled the questionnaire. As for the patients, informed consents were obtained from the surrogate decision makers of the critically ill patients prior to extracting the medical information from the patients’ files. They were ensured about their confidentiality with the use of an anonymous research tool and that the data collected from them would be used strictly for the purpose of the study objectives.

The statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 23) was used to describe and analyse the data. Statistical analysis performed were chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine association among variables. All tests were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.

Results

Characteristics of healthcare staff and their training on hyperglycaemia control

The majority (74.1%, 60/81) of the participants were nurses and the remaining 25.9% (21/81) were doctors. 77.8% (63/81) of the participants were aged 25–30 years with no statistical association (p = 0.05) between the age of the participants and their occupation. The years of working experience of the participants ranged between 0.1 year and 12 years with a median of 1 year; while, working years in intensive care unit ranged from 0.01 years to 8 years with a median of working years of 0.5 years. 66.7% (14/21) of the doctors received training on hyperglycaemia control and 36.7% (22/60) of the nurses were trained with a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 5.67, p = 0.017) between the status and being trained on hyperglycaemia, Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of the healthcare staff and training on glycaemic control (n = 81).

	Status of the staff						Likelihood ratio	p-value
Characteristics	Doctor	%	Nurse	%	Total	%
Age:
25–30 years	13	20.6	50	79.4	63	77.8	3.835	0.05
> 30 years	8	44.4	10	55.6	18	22.2
Total (%)	21	25.9	60	74.1	81	100.0
Gender:								0.193
Female	19	28.8	47	71.2	66	81.5	1.697
Male	2	13.3	13	86.7	15	18.5
Total (%)	21	25.9	60	74.1	81	100.0
ICU working experience:
<1year	11	20.4	43	79.6	54	66.7	4.849	0.089
1–3 years	9	45.0	11	55.0	20	24.7
>3 years	1	14.3	6	85.7	7	8.6
Total (%)	21	25.9	60	74.1	81	100.0
Training about Glycaemic control:
Trained	14	38.9	22	61.1	36	44.4	5.67*	0.017
Untrained	7	15.6	38	84.4	45	55.6
Total (%)	21		60		81	100.0

*chi-square test.

Awareness of healthcare staff about the target blood glucose level

The 81 healthcare staff were asked if they knew the target blood glucose (BG) level, 88.9% (72/81) replied yes, 27.8% (20/72) of them were doctors and 72.2% (52/72) were nurses. They were 9 who did not know (1 doctor and 8 nurses). There was a no statistically significant association (Likelihood ratio = 1.349, p = 0.245) between the awareness about target BG level and the staff status. However, when prompted to provide the exact level of the target blood glucose, they were 11.1% (8/72) who provided the correct level (140–180 mg/dl) and 88.9% (64/72) reported incorrect levels. Of the eight participants who reported the correct level, 62.5% (5/8) were doctors and 37.5% (3/8) were nurses. A statistically significant difference (Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.033) was found between the reported level of blood glucose and the status of the healthcare staff.

Awareness of healthcare staff about Basal-Bolus and insulin infusion methods

Regarding the awareness of healthcare staff about the hyperglycaemia control methods, 27 (6 doctors and 21 nurses) out of the 81 participants were unaware of the basal bolus method. While, 67 (16 doctors and 51 nurses) were unaware of the insulin infusion method. There was no statistically significant association between the knowledge of the staff about Basal-Bolus and Insulin Infusion, and their training status (p = 0.591 and 0.371 respectively). Lack of knowledge was the main reason reported by 96.3% and 97% of the staff regarding these two hyperglycaemia control methods.

Practice of healthcare staff towards blood glucose monitoring

The practice of staff towards blood glucose (BG) measurement was assessed as either more frequently (< 6 hourly) or less frequently (≥ 6 hourly). 47.6% of the doctors measured BG more frequently and 52.4% measured BG level less frequently. With regards to nurses, 35.0% measured BG more frequently and 65.0% measured it less frequently. In the overall, a no statistically significant association was found (χ2 = 2.197, p = 0.138) between the training of staff and their practice towards BG monitoring frequency. Across the three types of intensive care units, HbA1c was requested by 69.5% of the staff. In cardiac care unit (CCU), the request was from all (8/8) the staff; while in mixed and surgical ICUs it was respectively from 71.9% and 30% of the staff. There was a statistically significant association (Likelihood ratio = 12.584, p = 0.002) between ICU type and the request for HbA1c.

Practice of healthcare staff towards diabetic ketoacidosis

In the overall, the appropriate management of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), consisting of overlapping the I.V and S.C insulin was performed by 29.6% of the participants. The remaining 70.4% either they stop the I.V insulin before starting the S.C insulin (56.8%)) or they did not know what to do (13.6%); with a statistically significant difference between doctors and nurses (Likelihood ratio = 10.2, p = 0.006).

Hyperglycaemia control methods used by healthcare staff in the different intensive care units

Sliding scale method was used by 90% (9/10) of the surgical ICU staff, 84.4% (54/64) of the mixed and 25% (2/8) of the cardiac ICU. In the overall, across these three types of ICU, sliding scale method was used by 79.3% of the staff and they were 20.7% (17/82) who used other methods. These other methods used were Basal-Bolus method (82.3%), mixed insulin method (11.8%) and insulin infusion method (5.9%). There was a statistically significant association (Likelihood ratio = 12.728, p = 0.002) between the use of sliding scale method and the type of the ICU. Fig 1 revealed the distribution of staff by hyperglycaemia method used.

Fig 1

Hyperglycaemia control methods used among health care professionals.

Usual practice was the main reason (80.5%) reported by the participants for using sliding scale method, of the staff reported that it was the usual practice (p = 0.000) and more than half (53.7%) were not satisfied with the control method they were using.

Number of infusion pumps per ICU

The number of infusion pumps available per ICU patient ranged from 0 to 6 with a statistically significant mean number infusion pumps of 2.95 ± 1.33 (p = 0.001) across the five ICUs (3 mixed, 1 cardiac and 1 surgical). The lowest mean number of infusion pumps was recorded in the surgical unit (1.70 pumps±0.82, [range: 0–3]).

Characteristics of ICU patients

Of the Fifty-five patients selected across the ICUs of the Military Hospital, 50.9% were males and 49.1% were females. They aged between 19 and 95 years with a median age of 63.5 years. More than half (58.2%, 32/55) were under enteral feeding. 72.8% (40/55) were non-diabetic; 23.6% (13/55) and 3.6% (2/55) were respectively type 2 and type 1 diabetic patients. Table 2 displayed the other characteristics of the patients.

Table 2

Characteristics of the patients hospitalized in the ICUs of the Military Hospital (n = 55).

Variable	n	%	Variable	n	%
Gender (n = 55)			Renal function (n = 55)
Male	28	50.9	Normal	33	60.0
Female	27	49.1	Impaired	22	40.0
Age in years (n = 54)			Liver function (n = 55)
Median	63.5		Normal	53	96.4
Min-Max	19–95		Impaired	2	3.6
Patients conditions (n = 55)			Patients on vasopressors (n = 55)
Sepsis	17	30.9	No	46	83.6
Neurological	8	14.5	Yes	9	16.4
Cardiovascular	8	14.5	Patients on steroids (n = 55)
Trauma	8	14.5	No	43	78.2
Stroke	5	9.1	Yes	12	21.8
Gastroenterology	3	5.5	Patients on quinine I.V. (n = 55)
Cancer/Tumor	2	3.6	No	54	98.2
Endocrine	2	3.6	Yes	1	1.8
Respiratory	2	3.6	On Fluoroquinolones (n = 55)
Hyper glycaemia status (n = 55)			No	51	92.7
Non diabetic	40	72.8	Yes	4	7.3
Type 2 DM	13	23.6	On atypical antipsychotics (n = 55)
Type 1 DM	2	3.6	No	54	98.2
Feeding status (n = 55)			Yes	1	1.8
Enteral feeding	32	58.2
Oral feeding	15	27.3
Non per oral	8	14.5

Glycaemic status of ICU patients and hyperglycaemia control methods used in Military Hospital

A statistically significant association (Likelihood ratio = 49.964, p = 0.000) was found between the hyperglycaemia control method used and the diabetes status of the patients as indicated by Table 3.

Table 3

Hyperglycaemia control methods by the glycaemic status of the patients (n = 55).

Method used	Hyperglycaemia status						Total		p-value*
	Type 1 DM		Type 2 DM		Non-diabetic
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sliding scale	0	0.0	9	81.8	2	18.2	11	20.0	0.000
Basal-Bolus	0	0.0	2	100.0	0	0.0	2	3.6
Insulin I.V infusion	0	0.0	1	100.0	0	0.0	1	1.8
Other methods	1	33.3	1	33.3	1	33.3	3	5.5
None	1	2.6	0	0.0	37	97.4	38	69.1
Total patients	2	3.6	13	23.6	40	72.7	55	100.0

* Likelihood ratio = 49.964.

Blood glucose levels and hyperglycaemia control methods used

Two classifications of random blood glucose (the glycaemic levels and the NICE-SUGAR blood glucose levels) were used. The glycaemic levels classification revealed that 79.6% (43/54) of the patients were normal glycaemic (BG: 71–180 mg/dl), 18.5% (10/54) were hyperglycaemic (BG: > 180 mg/dl) and a patient (1.9%, 1/54) was hypoglycaemic (BG: < 71 mg/dl). In the other hand, the NICE-SUGAR blood glucose classification indicated that 61.1% (33/54) of the patients were below range (BG: <140 mg/dl), 20.4% (11/54) were in within random glucose level (BG: 140–180 mg/dl), 18.5% (10/54) were above the range of BG > 180 mg/dl.

Regarding the hyperglycaemia control methods, they were used for 31.5% (17/54) of the patients. Table 4 revealed that 5.9% (1/17) of the patients was monitored in using the best appropriate method which was insulin infusion; 29.4% (5/17) of the patients were under alternative glycaemia control methods which were namely basal- bolus (11.8%, 2/17), mixed insulin (11.8%, 2/17) and Oral (5.9%, 1/17). Unfortunately, the majority of patients (64.7%, 11/17) had their glycaemia control based on the old fashion method of sliding scale despite a no statistically significant association (likelihood ratio = 10.108, p = 0.258) between the NICE- SUGAR targets and the method used, Table 4.

Table 4

Glycaemic levels of patients by hyperglycaemia control methods (n = 17).

	NICE-SUGAR blood glucose levels								p-value*
	Above range (BG>180mg/dl)		In range (BG 140-180mg/dl)		Below range (BG<140mg/dl		Total
Hyperglycemia control method	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sliding scale	4	36.4	1	9.1	6	54.5	11	64.7	0.258
Basal- Bolus	1	50.0	0	0.0	1	50.0	2	11.8
Mixed insulin	2	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	11.8
Oral (Glimepiride)	1	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.9
Insulin infusion	0	0.0	1	100.0	0	0.0	1	5.9
Total patients	8	47.1	2	11.8	7	41.2	17	100.0

* Likelihood ratio = 10.108.

Discussion

Training of health professionals is crucial to sustain evidence-based practice [30,31]. More than half (66.7%, 14/21) of the doctors received training on hyperglycaemia control, while, only 36.7% (22/60) of the nurses did (p = 0.017). Interestingly, there was no difference (p >0.05) in knowledge between doctors and nurses about Basal-Bolus and insulin infusion methods and their training status. This emphasized the need for a standard updated policy with appropriate training material addressing the gaps of knowledge on hyperglycaemia control methods regardless the status of the staff [18]. Moreover, the practice of our staff towards blood glucose monitoring frequency using ICU lab and point of care method did not differ between trained and untrained doctors and nurses. This monitoring method using point of care (POC), glucometer or ICU laboratory, is acceptable as well as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) [32].

Regarding the practice towards DKA, as published in the literature [1,19,33], it statistically differed between doctors and nurses (p = 0.006), as well as, according to training status (p = 0.036).

Consistent with guideline-based practice [34,35], all the staff (100.0%) of the cardiac care unit (CCU) in the Military Hospital were practicing the HbA1c measurement, as expected in such unit; contrary to the mixed (71.9%) and surgical ICUs (30.0%), (p = 0.002).

Assessment on barriers and facilitators on policy implementation is required for developing protocols [18,31], such as availability of infusion pumps (indicated for the administration of insulin) for ICU patients [13,34,35]. This was considered a barrier in our study with the surgical ICU being the least equipped (1.7 ±0.82infusion pumps).

The dominant hyperglycaemia control method in both surgical and mixed ICUs was sliding scale, which stood as the standard practice of our study participants while this method was discouraged [17,19,34,36,37]. Insulin infusion method is the recommended control method [1,28,22,37], hence the need to move away nowadays from sliding scale [36]. This was our leitmotiv for proposing a protocol for glycaemia control in Sudan ICUs, Military Hospital (supporting information). The proposed protocol is justified by our findings, which revealed that more than half of the care providers used sliding scale and were satisfied with it. The target blood glucose level of 140–180 mg/dl, acceptable for most ICU patients [11] and adopted by most of the major agencies [2,3,13] was known by only 11% of our study participants. This appeal for the adoption of local institutional guidelines for all Military Hospital ICUs given the diversity of the specialities of health professionals [34].

Regarding patients, sliding scale method was used for 20% of the patients, this was consistent with a Brazilian study reporting the dominant use of sliding scale in ICUs [38]. Blood glucose readings pointed that 11.8% of the patients had readings in the target range of 140–180 mg/dl, 41.2% had BG levels below the target range and 47.1% of the patients were hyperglycaemic (BG > 180 mg/dl). Our findings raised concerns about the nutritional status of the patients and the methods used as discussed in the literature [8,9,39].

In our study, insulin infusion method was used for one patient and the NICE-SUGAR target was achieved [6,11]. While, mixed insulin method did not achieve the target glycaemic range as already reported by Marik P.E et al. [10]. Sliding scale method achieved the target range in only 9.1% of the patients of our study; consistent with published literature [8,19,40] recommending the use of insulin infusions in ICU patients to achieve the NICE-SUGAR range which had proven efficacy and safety in low-income countries [41].

This study was not without limitations, the data collected from the working staff were not validated through Cronbach test of reliability. Nevertheless, the study was conducted in a single center with multiple ICUS. The study was based on the self-reporting of the doctors and nurses which might be inaccurate. Besides, the collection of the medical data of the patients relied on the quality of documentation.

Conclusions

Lack of awareness about hyperglycaemia management methods was prevalent among ICU healthcare staff. Use of obsolete methods was the common practice in the ICUS of the Military Hospital. Target blood glucose for patients were unmet. Development of a local protocol for glycaemic control in all ICUs is needed along with sustained training programs on hyperglycaemia control for ICU healthcare staff.

Awareness of health care staff towards hyperglycaemia control methods and the reasons for lack of awareness (n = 81).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Management of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) by the participants according to their status of training on glycaemia control (n = 81).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Practice of measurement of blood glucose by health professional according to their training status (n = 81).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Glycaemia measurement methods used the staff of the intensive care units.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Glycaemia control methods used by healthcare professionals (n = 81).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Reasons reported by ICU staff and their satisfaction for using a given glycaemia control method.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Number of infusion pumps available for each patient across different ICUs.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Glycaemic ranges and the hyperglycaemia methods used.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Minimal data set.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jan 2022

Practice of Hyperglycemia Control in Intensive Care Units of the Military Hospital, Sudan- Needs of a Protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abd El-Raheem,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "NA"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article is interesting and deals with a very topical issue, which has not yet been resolved. Despite the low numbers, the authors propose an alternative method to be evaluated on larger case series. The study was conducted with a valid methodology, not easily applicable to the context of intensive wards.

Reviewer #2: I read with interest the manuscript titled “Practice of Hyperglycemia Control in Intensive Care Units of the Military Hospital, Sudan- Needs of a Protocol”.

This study assessed the practice of healthcare staff on hyperglycaemia control in intensive care units of Khartoum Military Hospital.

While I think the study has many merits, some cissues need attention.

Results

The results are confusing and do not meet the study's objective; this should be simpler to maintain interest from the readers.

In the methods, the authors indicate that ketoacidosis patients were excluded, and, in the results, there is some analysis included.

Discussion

After reading the discussion, I still do not understand the study's objective.

The limitation should be better addressed and avoid any justification based on a change of awareness accomplished by the study's results, however meaningful; there are no part of the study's objectives.

Tables and figures

There are too many tables and figures; it would be essential to select the most representative and the others, if needed, add them as supplementary material.

Conclusion

The conclusion should be based on your results, the sentence in line 322, was not part of your analysis in the study, and it only represents a point of view from the authors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Angel Augusto Perez-Calatayud

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Mar 2022

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for dedicating you valuable time to conduct a critical appraisal for our submitted manuscript. It is our pleasure to submit to PLOS ONE the manuscript titled “Practice of Hyperglycaemia Control in Intensive Care Units of the Military Hospital, Sudan - Needs of a Protocol”. The authors received no funding for this work. We chose PLOS ONE to publish our manuscript, because of the powerful peer review process. We have addressed all the following points:

• Ethical concerns.

• Data availability.

• Organising the results to be more clear.

• Explaining why DKA blood glucose readings were excluded.

• Rewriting the discussion and conclusion sections as well as the study limitations.

• Uploaded the figure to PACE tool and the hyperglycemia protocol to protocols.io

All the supporting data were uploaded as supporting information with no legal or ethical restrictions.

Thank you again for your valuable time and priceless advices.

With our best regards, we remain.

Ghada Omer Hamad Abd El-Raheem

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers March 2022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 Apr 2022

Practice of Hyperglycemia Control in Intensive Care Units of the Military Hospital, Sudan- Needs of a Protocol

PONE-D-20-22767R1

Dear Dr. Abd El-Raheem,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

27 Apr 2022

PONE-D-20-22767R1

Practice of Hyperglycaemia Control in Intensive Care Units of the Military Hospital, Sudan - Needs of a Protocol

Dear Dr. Abd El-Raheem:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE