The exact choice of insulin and oral medications and weight loss interventions are important considerations in the overall management of patients with type 2 diabetes. Changes in a patient's lifestyle, such as modifications to diet and implementing an exercise program, are first-line treatments for type 2 diabetes and can also counteract insulin-induced weight gain.

Targeting body weight, as an alternative model to targeting hemoglobin A(1c), is emerging as a viable and potentially cost-effective approach to diabetes management in clinical practice. Why WAIT (Weight Achievement and Intensive Treatment) is a 12-week multidisciplinary program for weight control and intensive diabetes management specifically designed for application in routine diabetes practice. The program, which is generally covered by insurance, is followed by continuous support aimed at long-term maintenance of weight loss and diabetes control. This model was effective in improving key metabolic abnormalities observed in diabetic patients. Eighty-two percent of participants achieved the target hemoglobin A(1c) of less than 7% on less diabetes medications. The achieved weight reduction after 12 weeks of intervention was maintained for an additional year. Future dissemination of this intervention model in routine clinical practice may require wider endorsement by third-party payers and support of governmental health care agencies to halt the progression of the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in the United States.

BackgroundUnchecked patient deterioration can lead to in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and avoidable death. The National Cardiac Arrest Audit (NCAA) has found fourfold variation in IHCA rates and survival between English hospitals. Key to reducing IHCA is both the identification of patients at risk of deterioration and prompt response. A range of targeted interventions have been introduced but implementation varies between hospitals. These differences are likely to contribute to the observed variation between and within hospitals over time.ObjectiveTo determine how interventions aimed at identification and management of deteriorating patients are associated with IHCA rates and outcomes.DesignA mixed-methods study involving a systematic literature review, semistructured interviews with 60 NHS staff, an organisational survey in 171 hospitals and interrupted time series and difference-in-difference analyses (106 hospitals).SettingEnglish hospitals participating in the NCAA audit.ParticipantsNHS staff (approximately 300) and patients (13 million).InterventionsEducation, track-and-trigger systems (TTSs), standardised handover tools and outreach teams.Main outcome measuresIHCA rates, survival and hospital-wide mortality.Data sourcesNCAA, Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics Mortality Statistics.MethodsA literature review and qualitative interviews were used to design an organisational survey that determined how interventions have been implemented in practice and across time. Associations between variations in services and IHCA rates and survival were determined using cross-sectional, interrupted time series and difference-in-difference analyses over the index study period (2009/10 to 2014/15).ResultsAcross NCAA hospitals, IHCAs fell by 6.4% per year and survival increased by 5% per year, with hospital mortality decreasing by a similar amount. A national, standard TTS [the National Early Warning Score (NEWS)], introduced in 2012, was adopted by 70% of hospitals by 2015. By 2015, one-third of hospitals had converted from paper-based TTSs to electronic TTSs, and there had been an increase in the number of hospitals with an outreach team and an increase in the number with a team available at all times. The extent of variation in the uses of educational courses and structured handover tools was limited, with 90% of hospitals reporting use of standardised communication tools, such as situation, background, assessment and recommendation, in 2015. Introduction of the NEWS was associated with an additional 8.4% decrease in IHCA rates and, separately, a conversion from paper to electronic TTS use was associated with an additional 7.6% decrease. However, there was no associated change in IHCA survival or hospital mortality. Outreach teams were not associated with a change in IHCA rates, survival or hospital mortality. A sensitivity analysis restricted to ward-based IHCAs did not alter the findings but did identify an association between increased outreach team intensity in 2015 and IHCA survival.LimitationsThe organisational survey was not able to explore all aspects of the interventions and the contextual factors that influenced them. Changes over time were dependent on respondents’ recall.ConclusionsStandardisation of TTSs and introduction of electronic TTSs are associated with a reduction in IHCAs. The apparent lack of impact of outreach teams may reflect their mode of introduction, that their effect is through providing support for implementation of TTS or that the organisation of the response to deterioration is not critical, as long as it is timely. Their role in end-of-life decision-making may account for the observed association with IHCA survival.Future workTo assess the potential impact of outreach teams at hospital level and patient level, and to establish which component of the TTS has the greatest effect on outcomes.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract