No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundHumanistic care in medicine has shown to improve healthcare outcomes. Language barriers are a significant obstacle to humanistic care, and trained medical interpreters have demonstrated to effectively bridge the gap for the vulnerable limited English proficiency (LEP) patient population. One way in which medical schools can train more humanistic physicians and provide language access is through the implementation of programs to train bilingual medical students as medical interpreters. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate whether such training had an impact on bilingual medical student’s interpretation skills and humanistic traits.MethodsBetween 2015 and 2017, whole-day (~ 8 h) workshops on medical interpretation were offered periodically to 80 bilingual medical students at the Penn State College of Medicine. Students completed a series of questionnaires before and after the training that assessed the program’s effectiveness and its overall impact on interpretation skills and humanistic traits. Students also had the opportunity to become certified medical interpreters.ResultsThe 80 student participants were first- to third- year medical students representing 21 languages. Following training, most students felt more confident interpreting (98%) and more empathetic towards LEP patients (87.5%). Students’ scores in the multiple-choice questions about medical interpretation/role of the interpreter were also significantly improved (Chi-Square test, p < 0.05). All students who decided to take the exam were able to successfully become certified interpreters. Ninety-two percent of participants reported they would recommend the program and would be willing to serve as a future “coaches” for interpreter training workshops delivered to peer students.ConclusionsOur program was successful in increasing self-reported measures of empathy and humanism in medical students. Our data suggests that implementation of medical interpreter training programs can be a successful strategy to develop of humanism in medical students, and aid in the development of sustainable language access for LEP patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1254-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hyperglycemia is frequently encountered in the inpatient setting and is distinctly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Recent literature suggests an association between stringent glycemic control and increased mortality, thus keeping optimal glycemic targets a relevant subject of debate. In the surgical population, hyperglycemia with or without diabetes mellitus may be unrecognized. Factors contributing to hyperglycemia in the hospital include critical illness, use of certain drugs, use of enteral or parenteral nutrition, and variability in oral or nutritional intake as can occur when patients are prepared for procedures or surgery. A sensible approach to managing hyperglycemia in this population includes preoperative recognition of diabetes mellitus and risks for inpatient hyperglycemia. Judicious control of glycemia during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative time periods with avoidance of hypoglycemia mandates the need for a strategy for patient management that extend to time of discharge. We review the consequences of uncontrolled perioperative hyperglycemia, discuss current clinical guidelines and recent controversies, and provide practical tools for glycemic control in the surgical population.

No abstract

IntroductionInnovative approaches are needed to design robust clinical decision support (CDS) to optimize hospital glycemic management. We piloted an electronic medical record (EMR), evidence-based algorithmic CDS tool in an academic center to alert clinicians in real time about gaps in care related to inpatient glucose control and insulin utilization, and to provide management recommendations.Research design and methodsThe tool was designed to identify clinical situations in need for action: (1) severe or recurrent hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes: blood glucose (BG) ≥13.88 mmol/L (250 mg/dL) at least once or BG ≥10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) at least twice, respectively; (2) recurrent hyperglycemia in patients with stress hyperglycemia: BG ≥10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) at least twice; (3) impending or established hypoglycemia: BG 3.9–4.4 mmol/L (70–80 mg/dL) or ≤3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL); and (4) inappropriate sliding scale insulin (SSI) monotherapy in recurrent hyperglycemia, or anytime in patients with type 1 diabetes. The EMR CDS was active (ON) for 6 months for all adult hospital patients and inactive (OFF) for 6 months. We prospectively identified and compared gaps in care between ON and OFF periods.ResultsWhen active, the hospital CDS tool significantly reduced events of recurrent hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (3342 vs 3701, OR=0.88, p=0.050) and in patients with stress hyperglycemia (288 vs 506, OR=0.60, p<0.001). Hypoglycemia or impending hypoglycemia (1548 vs 1349, OR=1.15, p=0.050) were unrelated to the CDS tool on subsequent analysis. Inappropriate use of SSI monotherapy in type 1 diabetes (10 vs 22, OR=0.36, p=0.073), inappropriate use of SSI monotherapy in type 2 diabetes (2519 vs 2748, OR=0.97, p=0.632), and in stress hyperglycemia subjects (1617 vs 1488, OR=1.30, p<0.001) were recognized.ConclusionEMR CDS was successful in reducing hyperglycemic events among hospitalized patients with dysglycemia and diabetes, and inappropriate insulin use in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Objective The management of inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetes requires expertise among many healthcare providers. There is limited evidence about how education for healthcare providers can result in optimization of clinical outcomes. The purpose of this critical review of the literature is to examine methods and outcomes related to educational interventions regarding the management of diabetes and dysglycemia in the hospital setting. This report provides recommendations to advance learning, curricular planning, and clinical practice. Methods We conducted a literature search through PubMed Medical for terms related to concepts of glycemic management in the hospital and medical education and training. This search yielded 1,493 articles published between 2003 and 2016. Results The selection process resulted in 16 original articles encompassing 1,123 learners from various disciplines. We categorized findings corresponding to learning outcomes and patient care outcomes. Conclusion Based on the analysis, we propose the following perspectives, leveraging learning and clinical practice that can advance the care of patients with diabetes and/or dysglycemia in the hospital. These include: (1) application of knowledge related to inpatient glycemic management can be improved with active, situated, and participatory interactions of learners in the workplace; (2) instruction about inpatient glycemic management needs to reach a larger population of learners; (3) management of dysglycemia in the hospital may benefit from the integration of clinical decision support strategies; and (4) education should be adopted as a formal component of hospitals’ quality planning, aiming to integrate clinical practice guidelines and to optimize diabetes care in hospitals.

IMPORTANCE Patients with medically complex conditions undergoing repair of large or recurrent hernia of the abdominal wall are at risk for early postoperative hyperglycemia, which may serve as an early warning for delays in recovery and for adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE To evaluate postoperative serum glucose level as a predictor of outcome after open ventral hernia repair in patients with major medical comorbidities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We performed a retrospective medical record review of 172 consecutive patients who underwent open ventral hernia repair at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, an academic tertiary referral center, from May 1, 2011, through November 30, 2013. We initially identified patients by medical complexity and repair requiring a length of stay of longer than 1 day. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Postoperative recovery variables, including time to the first solid meal, length of stay, total costs of hospitalization, and surgical site occurrence. RESULTS Postoperative serum glucose values were available for 136 patients (79.1%), with 130 (95.6%) obtained within 48 hours of surgery. Among these patients, Ventral Hernia Working Group grade distributions included 8 patients with grade 1, 79 with grade 2, 41 with grade 3, and 8 with grade 4. Fifty-four patients (39.7%) had a postoperative glucose level of at least 140 mg/dL, and 69 patients (50.7%) required insulin administration. Both outcomes were associated with delays in the interval to the first solid meal (glucose level, Ն140 vs <140 mg/dL: mean [SD] delay, 6.4 [5.3] vs 5.6 [8.2] days; P = .01; Ն2 insulin events vs <2: 6.5 [5.5] vs 5.4 [8.4] days; P = .02); increased length of stay (glucose level, Ն140 vs <140 mg/dL: mean [SD], 8.0 [6.0] vs 6.9 [8.2] days; P = .008; Ն2 insulin events vs <2: 8.3 [6.1] vs 6.5 [8.4] days; P < .001); increased costs of hospitalization (glucose level, Ն140 vs <140 mg/dL: mean [SD], $31 307 [$20 875] vs $22 508 [$22 531]; P < .001; Ն2 insulin events vs <2: $31 943 [$22 224] vs $20 651 [$20 917]; P < .001); and possibly increased likelihood of surgical site occurrence (glucose level, Ն140 vs <140 mg/dL: 37.5% [21 of 56 patients] vs 22.5% [18 of 80 patients]; P = .06; Ն2 insulin events vs <2: 36.4% [24 of 66 patients] vs 21.4% [15 of 70 patients]; P = .06). Not all patients with diabetes mellitus developed postoperative hyperglycemia or needed more intense insulin therapy; however, 46.4% of the patients who developed postoperative hyperglycemia were not previously known to have diabetes mellitus, although most had at least 1 clinical risk factor for a prediabetic condition. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Postoperative hyperglycemia was associated with outcomes in patients in this study who underwent complex ventral hernia repair and may serve as a suitable target for screening, benchmarking, and intervention in patient groups with major comorbidities.