Boyle, Mary E.

Background: The objective of this study was to assess disposal patterns for “sharps” among a cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving insulin therapy. Method: A convenience sample of inpatients and outpatients was surveyed about how they disposed of sharps, how often they reused lancets and needles, and what education they had received about proper disposal. Safe disposal was defined as discarding sharps into a formal sharps or sealable container; otherwise, disposal was categorized as unsafe. Results: Of 150 respondents, 56% were men and 75% were white. The mean (SD) age was 56 (15) years; duration of DM, 20 (13) years; and hemoglobin A 1c , 8.1% (2.0%). Half the respondents reused a lancet two or more times, and 21% reused an insulin needle two or more times. Thirty-eight percent of respondents discarded lancets unsafely, and 33% discarded insulin needles unsafely, typically by throwing these items into household trash. Most respondents (75%) discarded insulin pens, vials, cartridges, insulin pump supplies, and continuous glucose monitor sensors into household trash. Most (64%) indicated that they had not received education on safe sharps-disposal practices, and 84% had never visited their municipal website for information on medical waste disposal. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of patients unsafely disposed of sharps. Unsafe disposal could cause millions of sharps to appear in the municipal solid waste stream, thereby posing a substantial public health hazard. Point-of-care patient education is important, but a broader public health campaign may be required.

Background: We propose a methodology to analyze complex real-life glucose data in insulin pump users. Methods: Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on insulin pumps were recruited from an academic endocrinology practice. Glucose data, insulin bolus (IB) amounts, and self-reported alcohol consumption and exercise events were collected for 30 days. Rules were developed to retrospectively compare IB recommendations from the insulin pump bolus calculator (IPBC) against recommendations from a proposed decision aid (PDA) and for assessing the PDA’s recommendation for exercise and alcohol. Results: Data from 15 participants were analyzed. When considering instances where glucose was below target, the PDA recommended a smaller dose in 14%, but a larger dose in 13% and an equivalent IB in 73%. For glucose levels at target, the PDA suggested an equivalent IB in 58% compared to the subject’s IPBC, but higher doses in 20% and lower in 22%. In events where postprandial glucose was higher than target, the PDA suggested higher doses in 25%, lower doses in 13%, and equivalent doses in 62%. In 64% of all alcohol events the PDA would have provided appropriate advice. In 75% of exercise events, the PDA appropriately advised an IB, a carbohydrate snack, or neither. Conclusions: This study provides a methodology to systematically analyze real-life data generated by insulin pumps and allowed a preliminary analysis of the performance of the PDA for insulin dosing. Further testing of the methodological approach in a broader diabetes population and prospective testing of the PDA are needed.

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: This study aims to identify self-management strategies used by patients with diabetes in hot weather, examine knowledge of safe temperatures and exposure times, and evaluate comprehension of weather data. Methods: Patients attending an endocrinology clinic in southwestern United States were surveyed. Results: One hundred fifty-two surveys completed from November 30 to December 31, 2009 were analyzed. Mean patient age was 64 years; diabetes duration, 15 years; 51% were women, 83% had type 2 diabetes, 58% were non Hispanic white, and 77% were on insulin injections. Mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.9%; 38% had hemoglobin A1c values of 8.0% or higher. Patients used an array of personal protective measures during hot weather, and 71% limited heat exposure to less than one hour. Respondents typically took steps to protect their diabetes medication and supplies, but 37% chose to leave medications and supplies at home. Although 73% of respondents had received information regarding the effect of heat on insulin, only 39% had received information about the effect of heat on oral medications, 41% on glucose meters, and 38% on glucose test strips. The temperature at which patients took protective measures varied. Only 55% knew the definition of the heat index. Conclusion: Most survey participants took measures to protect themselves from the heat, although gaps in knowledge were evident. Many patients had suboptimal glycemic control, placing them potentially at risk for dehydration during the hottest months. Increased public awareness of this topic is needed, and diabetes education programs should include information about the heat where appropriate.

Background: Insulin pump therapy is a complex technology prone to errors when employed in the hospital setting. When patients on insulin pump therapy require hospitalization, practitioners caring for them must decide whether to allow continued pump use. We provide the largest review regarding transitioning insulin pump therapy from the outpatient to inpatient setting. Method: Records of inpatient insulin pump users were retrospectively analyzed at a metropolitan Phoenix hospital between January 2006 and December 2009. Adherence to institutional procedures on insulin pump use was assessed, glycemic control was determined, and adverse events were examined. Results: We examined records on 65 patients with insulin pumps, totaling 125 hospitalizations. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 55 (17) years, diabetes duration was 27 (14) years, pump duration was 6 (5) years, length of hospital stay was 4.7 (6.3) days, hemoglobin A1c was 7.3 (1.3)%, 85% had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 57% were women, and 97% were white. Admissions involving insulin pumps increased (23 in 2006, 17 in 2007, 40 in 2008, and 45 in 2009). Insulin pump therapy was continued in 83 (66%) hospitalizations. Among these hospitalizations, endocrinology consultations were obtained in 89%, consent agreements were found in 83%, insulin pump order sets were completed in 89%, admission glucose was checked in 100%, and nursing assessments of pump insertion sites were documented in 89%, but bedside insulin pump flow sheets were found in only 55%. Mean glucose of 175 (57) mg/dl was not significantly different than that in hospitalizations where insulin pumps were discontinued [175 (42) mg/dl] or used intermittently [177 (7) mg/dl]. There was one instance of a pump catheter kinking; however, no other adverse events (pump site infections, mechanical pump failure, diabetic ketoacidosis) were observed, and there were no use-related fatalities. Conclusions: Most patients using insulin pumps can safely have their therapy transitioned when hospitalized. A policy on inpatient continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use can be successfully implemented. Compliance with required procedures can be achieved, although there was room to improve adherence with some process measures. Further study is needed to determine how to optimize glycemic control when pumps are allowed during hospitalization.

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.