This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore experiences of hospitalized patients as they transition insulin pump self-management from home to hospital and the experience of nurses caring for them. Patients are often more knowledgeable about the pump than their nurses, which could lead to undiscovered challenges. Little is known about the hospital experience related to insulin pump therapy from nurses’ and patients’ perspectives. Methods A qualitative approach with interpretive descriptive design and purposive sampling was used. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age, able to read and speak English, and admitted to non-ICU settings ≥20 hours. Eligible nurses cared for at least 1 patient using an insulin pump. Patients and nurses were interviewed separately. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. Coding was performed independently and jointly to reach consensus on emerging themes. Results Hospitalized patients and nurses had an array of perceptions highlighting challenges and adaption to “finding the balance” in managing diabetes when patients wore their insulin pumps. There were 4 interrelated themes representing a continuum of trust to lack of trust, control versus lack of control, effective communication to limited communication, and staff knowledge to lack of knowledge. Conclusions Results of this study provide valuable insights into the challenges for both patients and nurses. A standardized approach to caring for this population is necessary. These findings can inform the development of nursing education programs and policies aimed at improving their experiences.

Diabetes and hyperglycemia are associated with an increased risk of in-hospital complications that lead to longer lengths of stay, increased morbidity, higher mortality, and risk of readmission. Diabetes care and education specialists (DCESs) working in hospital settings are uniquely prepared and credentialed to serve as content experts to facilitate change and implement processes and programs to improve glycemic-related outcomes. A recent survey of DCESs explored the topic of productivity and clinical metrics. Outcomes highlighted the need to better evaluate the impact and value of inpatient DCESs, advocate for the role, and to expand diabetes care and education teams to optimize outcomes. The purpose of this article was to recommend strategies and metrics that can be used to quantify the work of inpatient DCESs and describe how such metrics can help to show the value of the inpatient DCES and assist in making a business case for the role.

No abstract

Diabetes and hyperglycemia are risk factors for morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID19. Subspecialty consultative resources to help front-line clinicians treat these conditions is often limited. We implemented a “Virtual Hyperglycemia Surveillance Service (VHSS)” to guide glucose management in COVID19 patients admitted to our 1541-bed academic medical center. From April 22 to June 9, 2020, hospitalized adult patients with COVID19 and 2 or more blood glucose (BG) values greater than 250 mg/dl over 24-h were identified using a daily BG report. The VHSS reviewed BGs and treatment plans, then made recommendations for future glycemic management via a one-time note, visible to all providers. Some patients with re-admission or persistently elevated BG after 1 week received a second VHSS note. We compared BGs from 24-h pre- and 72-h post-intervention starting at 6AM on the day following VHSS review. We also evaluated for hypoglycemia, insulin infusion use and use of formal diabetes consults. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). At the end of the intervention, we identified a retrospective control cohort admitted to the same hospital from March 21 to April 21, 2020 who met the inclusion criteria for a VHSS assessment. The VHSS group consisted of 100 patients with 126 individual VHSS encounters, and the control group comprised 50 patients. Baseline characteristics in the VHSS and control groups, respectively, were: mean age 62.5 vs 62.1 years, % male 58 vs 56, mean weight 91.4 vs 93.4 kg, BMI 31.8 vs 33.0 kg/m2, and HbA1c 9.1 vs 8.8 %. There were fewer patients in the ICU in the VHSS than control group (44% vs 66%). In the VHSS group, mean BG pre- vs. post-intervention was 260.3 ±21.7 and 227.4 ±25.3 mg/dl (p<0.001). In the control group, mean BG pre-and post- the day they met assessment criteria was 264.8 ± 6.5 mg/dl and 250.6 ± 8.6 mg/dl (p=0.18). There was no difference in the use of insulin infusions or diabetes consults between the two groups. More hypoglycemia (BG<70 mg/dl) occurred in the VHSS than control group (8.3% vs 0%, p=0.04). Within the VHSS group, the average change in BG was significantly greater in ICU than non-ICU patients (-51.8 ±8.7 vs -19.6 ±5.0 mg/dl, p<0.01) and the reduction in the % of BG over 250 mg/dl was also significantly greater in the ICU (-32.2% vs -16.8%, p=0.02). Implementation of a single virtual consult for severely hyperglycemic hospitalized COVID19 patients was associated with rapidly reduced BG concentrations, especially in the ICU. The mean reduction in BG with VHSS intervention was more than 2-fold greater than that observed in our control group. Glucose control remained suboptimal, however, suggesting the need for subsequent input from this specialty service.

No abstract

No abstract