Seifert, Karen M.

Background: We aim to provide data on a diabetes technology simulation course (DTSC) that instructs internal medicine residents in the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) devices. Methods: The DTSC was implemented during calendar year 2012 and conducted in the institution's simulation center. It consisted of a set of prerequisites, a practicum, and completion of a web-based inpatient CSII-ordering simulation. DTSC participants included only those residents in the outpatient endocrinology rotation. Questionnaires were used to determine whether course objectives were met and to assess the satisfaction of residents with the course. Questionnaires were also administered before and after the endocrine rotation to gauge improvement in familiarity with CSII and CGMS technologies. Results: During the first year, 12 of 12 residents in the outpatient endocrinology rotation completed the DTSC. Residents reported that the course objectives were fully met. The mean satisfaction score with the course ranged from 4.0 to 4.9 (maximum, 5), with most variables rated above 4.5. Self-reported familiarity with the operation of CSII and CGMS devices increased significantly in the postrotation survey compared with that on the prerotation survey (both p < .01). Conclusions: In this pilot program, simulation-based education increased the perceived familiarity of residents with CSII and CGMS technologies. In light of these preliminary findings, the course will continue to be offered, with further data accrual. Future work will involve piloting the DTSC approach among other types of providers, such as residents in other specialties or inpatient nursing staff.

Objective: The objective of the analysis was to review the effectiveness of a care process model (CPM) developed to guide management of patients on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures. Methods: Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess the impact of the CPM on documentation of insulin pump status, glucose monitoring, and safety during the perioperative phase of care. Post-CPM care was compared with management provided before CPM implementation. Results: We reviewed 45 cases on insulin pump therapy in the pre-CPM cohort and 106 in the post-CPM cohort. Demographic characteristics, categories of surgery, and perioperative times were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Recommended hemoglobin A1c monitoring occurred in 73% of cases in the pre-CPM cohort but improved to 94% in the post-CPM group ( P < .01). There was a higher frequency of documentation of the insulin pump during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit segments of care in the post- vs pre-CPM periods (all P < .01). The number of cases with intraoperative glucose monitoring increased (57% pre-CPM vs 81% post-CPM; P < .01). Glycemic control was comparable between the 2 CPM periods. Hypoglycemia was rare, with only 3 episodes in the pre-CPM group and 4 in the post-CPM. No adverse events associated with perioperative insulin pump use were observed. Conclusions: This analysis adds to previous data on use of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period. Some processes require additional attention, but data continue to indicate that a standardized approach to care can lead to a successful and safe transition of insulin pump therapy throughout the perioperative period.

Background: An institutional policy was previously established for patients with diabetes on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures. Method: Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess documentation of insulin pump status and glucose monitoring during preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) phases of care. Results: Twenty patients with insulin pumps underwent 23 procedures from March 1 to December 31, 2011. Mean (standard deviation) age was 58 (13) years, mean diabetes duration was 28 (17) years, and mean duration of insulin pump therapy was 7 (6) years. Nearly all cases (86%) during the preoperative phase had the presence of the device documented—an improvement over the 64% noted in data collected before the policy. Intraoperatively, 13 cases (61%) had the presence of the pump documented, which was higher than the 28% before implementation of the policy. However, documentation of pump status was found in only 38% in the PACU and was actually less than the 60% documented previously. Over 90% of cases had glucose checked in the preoperative area and the PACU, and only 60% had it checked intraoperatively, which was nearly identical to the percentages seen before policy implementation. No adverse events occurred when insulin pump therapy was continued. Conclusions: Although some processes still require improvement, preliminary data suggest that the policy for perioperative management of insulin pumps has provided useful structure for care of these cases. The data thus far indicate that insulin pump therapy can be continued safely during the perioperative period.

Background: We reviewed the care of a large cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus on insulin pump therapy who required an inpatient stay. Methods: Records were reviewed of patients hospitalized between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011. Results: A total of 136 patients using insulin pumps had 253 hospitalizations. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 55 (16) years, diabetes duration was 29 (15) years, and pump duration was 6 (5) years. Insulin pump therapy was continued in 164 (65%) hospitalizations. Adherence to core process measures improved over time: by 2011, 100% of cases had an endocrinology consultation, 100% had the required insulin pump order set completed, and 94% had documentation of the signed agreement specifying patient responsibilities for continued use of the technology while hospitalized. Documentation of the insulin pump flow sheet also increased but could still be located in only 64% of cases by the end of 2011. Mean glucose was not significantly different among patients who remained on insulin pump therapy compared to those for whom it was discontinued ( p > .1), but episodes of severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dl) and hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) were significantly less common among pump users. No pump site infections, mechanical pump failures, or episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed among patients remaining on therapy. Conclusions: With appropriate patient selection and usage guidelines, most patients using insulin pumps can safely have their therapy transitioned to the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to determine whether this approach can be translated to other hospital settings.

Case reports indicate that diabetes patients receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy have been allowed to continue treatment during surgical procedures. Although allowed during surgery, there is actually little information in the medical literature on how to manage patients receiving insulin pump therapy during a planned surgical procedure. A multidisciplinary work group reviewed current information regarding the use of insulin pumps in the perioperative period. Although the work group identified safety issues specific to surgical scenarios, it believed that with the use of standardized guidelines and a checklist, continuation of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period is feasible. A sample set of protocols have been developed and are summarized. A policy outlining clear procedures should be established at the institutional level to guide physicians and other staf if the devices are to be employed during the perioperative period. Additional clinical experience with the technology in surgical scenarios is needed, and consensus should be developed for insulin pump use in the perioperative phases of care.

Background: Hypoglycemia is often cited as a barrier to achieving inpatient glycemic targets. We sought to characterize hypoglycemic events in our institution by work-shift cycle and by specific treatment area. Methods: Capillary (bedside) and blood (laboratory) glucose values of <70 mg/dl for patients with either a known diagnosis of diabetes or with evidence of hyperglycemia were abstracted from our laboratory database for hospitalizations between October 1, 2007, and February 3, 2008. Hypoglycemic events were analyzed by 12 h nursing work-shift cycles (day shift, 07:00 to 18:59; night shift, 19:00 to 06:59) and by the six medical, surgical, and intensive care areas in the hospital (designated areas 1 to 6). Results: We identified 206 individual patients with either diabetes or hyperglycemia (mean age, 67 years; 56% men; 83% white) who had 423 hypoglycemic events. There were 78% more hypoglycemic events during the night shift ( n = 271 events in 128 individual patients) than during the day shift ( n = 152 events in 96 individual patients). Most of the night-shift hypoglycemic measurements were detected between 04:00 and 04:59 or 06:00 and 06:59. The mean hypoglycemic level was comparable between shifts ( p = .79) and across the six inpatient areas. The number of hypoglycemic events per person increased with lengths of hospital stay >5 days. The prevalence of hypoglycemia varied across patient care areas within the hospital, with most (28%) detected in one area of the hospital. Conclusion: There are temporal and geographic patterns in the occurrence of hypoglycemia among patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia in our hospital. Further study should focus on the reasons underlying these variations so that specific interventions can address the risk of hypoglycemia during peak times and places.

Background: This article reviews the performance of our hospital's inpatient insulin pump policy. Methods: Twenty-five hospital admissions of 21 unique patients receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy were reviewed. Results: Between November 1, 2005, and November 30, 2006, there were 25 hospital admissions involving 21 patients receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy. The average age and duration of diabetes among these 21 patients was 50 and 29 years, respectively; 67% were women, 90% had type 1 diabetes, and all were white. The mean length of hospital stay was 4 days, and the average reported length of insulin pump therapy was 4 years. Patients in 16 of the admissions were identified as candidates for continued use of the insulin pump during the hospital stay. Over 90% of patients remaining on the insulin pump had documentation by nursing of the presence of the pump at the time of admission; 100% of the patients had an admission glucose recorded; 88% had a record of signed patient consent; 81% had evidence of completed preprinted insulin pump orders; 75% received a required endocrine consultation; and 75% of cases had documentation of completed bedside flow sheet. A high frequency of both hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events occurred in the patients; however, no adverse events were related directly to the insulin pump. Conclusions: Insulin pump therapy can be safely continued in the hospital setting. While staff compliance with required procedures was high, there was still room for improvement. More data are needed, however, on whether this method of insulin delivery is effective for controlling hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.