Gregory Maynard

Management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in non-critical care setting: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVE The aim was to formulate practice guidelines on the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in the non-critical care setting. PARTICIPANTS The Task Force was composed of a chair, selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society, six additional experts, and a methodologist. EVIDENCE This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS One group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications enabled consensus. Endocrine Society members, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Association of Diabetes Educators, European Society of Endocrinology, and the Society of Hospital Medicine reviewed and commented on preliminary drafts of this guideline. CONCLUSIONS Hyperglycemia is a common, serious, and costly health care problem in hospitalized patients. Observational and randomized controlled studies indicate that improvement in glycemic control results in lower rates of hospital complications in general medicine and surgery patients. Implementing a standardized sc insulin order set promoting the use of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin therapy is a key intervention in the inpatient management of diabetes. We provide recommendations for practical, achievable, and safe glycemic targets and describe protocols, procedures, and system improvements required to facilitate the achievement of glycemic goals in patients with hyperglycemia and diabetes admitted in non-critical care settings.

Enhancing insulin-use safety in hospitals: Practical recommendations from an ASHP Foundation expert consensus panel

PURPOSE Consensus recommendations to help ensure safe insulin use in hospitalized patients are presented. SUMMARY Insulin products are frequently involved in medication errors in hospitals, and insulin is classified as a high-alert medication when used in inpatient settings. In an initiative to promote safer insulin use, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Research and Education Foundation convened a 21-member panel representing the fields of pharmacy, medicine, and nursing and consumer advocacy groups for a three-stage consensus-building initiative. The panels consensus recommendations include the following: development of protocol-driven insulin order sets, elimination of the routine use of correction/sliding-scale insulin doses for management of hyperglycemia, restrictions on the types of insulin products stored in patient care areas, and policies to restrict the preparation of insulin bolus doses and i.v. infusions to the pharmacy department. In addition, the panelists recommended that hospitals better coordinate insulin use with meal intake and glucose testing, prospectively monitor the coordination of insulin delivery and rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and provide standardized education and competency assessment for all hospital-based health care professionals responsible for insulin use. CONCLUSION A 21-member expert panel convened by the ASHP Foundation identified 10 recommendations for enhancing insulin-use safety across the medication-use process in hospitals. Professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and consumer groups can play a critical role in the translation of these recommendations into practice. Rigorous research studies and program evaluations are needed to study the impact of implementation of these recommendations.

Intern to Attending: Assessing Stress Among Physicians

Purpose Organizations have raised concerns regarding stress in the medical work environment and effects on health care worker performance. This studys objective was to assess workplace stress among interns, residents, and attending physicians using Ecological Momentary Assessment technology, the gold-standard method for real-time measurement of psychological characteristics. Method The authors deployed handheld computers with customized software to 185 physicians on the medicine and pediatric wards of four major teaching hospitals. The physicians contemporaneously recorded multiple dimensions of physician work (e.g., type of call day), emotional stress (e.g., worry, stress, fatigue), and perceived workload (e.g., patient volume). The authors performed descriptive statistics and t test and linear regression analyses. Results Participants completed 5,673 prompts during an 18-month period from 2004 to 2005. Parameters associated with higher emotional stress in linear regression models included male gender (t = −2.5, P = .01), total patient load (t = 4.2, P < .001), and sleep quality (t = −2.8, P = .006). Stress levels reported by attendings (t = −3.3, P = .001) were lower than levels reported by residents (t = −2.6, P = .009), and emotional stress levels of attendings and residents were both lower compared with interns. Conclusions On inpatient wards, after recent resident duty hours changes, physician trainees continue to show wide-ranging evidence of workplace stress and poor sleep quality. This is among the first studies of medical workplace stress in real time. These results can help residency programs target education in stress and sleep and readdress workload distribution by training level. Further research is needed to clarify behavioral factors underlying variability in housestaff stress responses.

The case for supporting inpatient glycemic control programs now: The evidence and beyond

8 Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. M edical centers are faced with multiple competing priorities when deciding how to focus their improvement efforts and meet the ever expanding menu of publicly reported and regulatory issues. In this article we expand on the rationale for supporting inpatient glycemic control programs as a priority that should be moved near the top of the list. We review the evidence for establishing glycemic range targets, and also review the limitations of this evidence, acknowledging, as does the American Diabetes Association (ADA), that in ‘‘both the critical care and non-critical care venue, glycemic goals must take into account the individual patient’s situation as well as hospital system support for achieving these goals.’’ We emphasize that inpatient glycemic control programs are needed to address a wide variety of quality and safety issues surrounding the care of the inpatient with diabetes and hyperglycemia, and we wish to elevate the dialogue beyond arguments surrounding adoption of one glycemic target versus another. The Society of Hospital Medicine Glycemic Control Task Force members are not in unanimous agreement with the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/ADA inpatient glycemic targets. However, we do agree on several other important points, which we will expand on in this article:

Indication-Based Ordering: A New Paradigm for Glycemic Control in Hospitalized Inpatients

Background: Inpatient glycemic control is a constant challenge. Institutional insulin management protocols and structured order sets are commonly advocated but poorly studied. Effective and validated methods to integrate algorithmic protocol guidance into the insulin ordering process are needed. Methods: We introduced a basic structured set of computerized insulin orders (Version 1), and later introduced a paper insulin management protocol, to assist users with the order set. Metrics were devised to assess the impact of the protocol on insulin use, glycemic control, and hypoglycemia using pharmacy data and point of care glucose tests. When incremental improvement was seen (as described in the results), Version 2 of the insulin orders was created to further streamline the process. Results: The percentage of regimens containing basal insulin improved with Version 1. The percentage of patient days with hypoglycemia improved from 3.68% at baseline to 2.59% with Version 1 plus the paper insulin management protocol, representing a relative risk for hypoglycemic day of 0.70 [confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 0.80]. The relative risk of an uncontrolled (mean glucose over 180 mg/dl) patient stay was reduced to 0.84 (CI 0.77, 0.91) with Version 1 and was reduced further to 0.73 (CI 0.66, 0.81) with the paper protocol. Version 2 used clinician-entered patient parameters to guide protocol-based insulin ordering and simultaneously improved the flexibility and ease of ordering over Version 1. Conclusion: Patient parameter and protocol-based clinical decision support, added to computerized provider order entry, has a track record of improving glycemic control indices. This justifies the incorporation of these algorithms into online order management.

Improved coding of postoperative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in administrative data (AHRQ patient safety indicator 12) after introduction of new ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes

Background:Symptomatic venous thromboembolism is a common postoperative complication. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has developed a Patient Safety Indicator 12 to assist hospitals, payers, and other stakeholders to identify patients who experienced this complication. Objectives:To determine whether newly created and recently redefined ICD-9-CM codes improved the criterion validity of Patient Safety Indicator 12, based on new samples of records dated after October 2009. Research Design, Subjects, Measures:Two sources of data were used: (1) UHC retrospective case-control study of risk factors for acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurring within 90 days after total knee arthroplasty in teaching hospitals; (2) chart abstraction data by volunteer hospitals participating in the Validation Pilot Project of the AHRQ. Results:In the UHC sample, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 99% (125/126) and the negative predictive value was 99.4% (460/463). In the AHRQ sample, the overall PPV was 81% (126/156). Conclusions:The PPV based on both samples shows substantial improvement compared with the previously reported PPVs of 43%–48%, suggesting that changes in ICD-9-CM code architecture and better coding guidance can improve the usefulness of coded data.

Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation: Creating a National Network of Shared Information

BACKGROUND The Society of Hospital Medicines (SHMs) Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) program, which, like all MI programs, is conducted as an improvement collaborative, is intended to help hospitals improve inpatient glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic patients by educating and mentoring quality teams. METHODS Hospital quality improvement (QI) teams applied for participation in GCMI from 2009 through 2012. Accepted sites were assigned either a hospitalist or endocrinologist mentor to work through the life cycle of a QI project. SHMs Implementation Guide, online resources, measurement strategies, Web-based Glycemic Control Data Center for Performance Tracking, webinars, interactive list-serve, and other tools help mentors guide these teams through the program. Mentors in GCMI bring expertise in both inpatient glycemic control and QI. RESULTS One hundred fourteen hospital QI teams were enrolled into the GCMI program in the course of 2.5 years. Of these 114 sites, 90 completed the program, with 63 of them uploading data to the Data Center. Feedback from the sites was consistently positive, with the listserve, Data Center, and mentorship reported as the top three most effective components of the program. Ninety-five percent of respondents stated that they would recommend participation in an SHM-mentored implementation program to a colleague. Participants reported improved leadership skills and increased institutional support for glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS Hospital quality teams participating in the GCMI program gained support to overcome barriers, focus on improving glycemic control, network with peers and expert mentor physicians, collect and analyze data, and build quality leaders. The features and structure of this program can be used in other multisite QI goals and projects.

Medical admission order sets to improve deep vein thrombosis prevention: A model for others or a prescription for mediocrity?

I n this issue of JHM, O’Connor et al. examine the impact of paper-based admission order sets on several quality measures relevant to medical inpatients in a large community medical center, focusing the most attention on the use of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Randomly selected medical admissions from 4 time periods were examined by chart review for use of the order set, and for the use of VTE prophylaxis (defined as either unfractionated heparin [UFH] 5,000 units subcutaneous [sc] twice daily [BID] or compression stockings). VTE prophylaxis was ordered in an abysmally low 10.9% of inpatients in the baseline period. In spite of the limitations inherent in a ‘‘before and after’’ study design and a failure to assess the appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis, VTE rates, or side effects, the authors present convincing evidence that improvement in VTE prophylaxis did occur. However, it was a very limited and suboptimal improvement. By the fourteenth and fifteenth month after order set introduction, only about one-half of admissions used the order set, and even when the order set was used, only 44% had VTE prophylaxis ordered. The percent of patient-days with pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients improved after order set implementation, but remained very low, at 26%. Therefore, the key lessons to be learned from this study are likely derived from what went wrong, rather than what went right. Why did VTE prophylaxis rates stay so low in the face of a multiyear effort? An examination of more successful efforts, recent reviews in the VTE and quality improvement literature, and the Society of Hospital Medicine VTE Prevention Collaborative experience reveals several principles for effective improvement that were not followed in this study.

The physician mentored implementation model: a promising quality improvement framework for health care change.

Quality improvement (QI) efforts hold great promise for improving care delivery. However, hospitals often struggle with QI implementation and fail to sustain improvement in either process changes or patient outcomes. Physician mentored implementation (PMI) is a novel approach that promotes the success and sustainability of QI initiatives at hospitals. It leverages the expertise of external physician mentors who coach QI teams to implement interventions at their local hospitals. The PMI model includes five core components: (1) a hospital self-assessment tool, (2) a face-to-face training session including direct interaction with a physician mentor, (3) a guided continuous quality improvement and systems approach, (4) yearlong individual physician mentoring, and (5) a learning community supported by a resource center, listserv, and webinars. Mentors provide content and process expertise, rather than offering “one-size-fits-all” technical assistance that might not be sustained after the mentoring year ends. Mentors support and motivate QI teams throughout the planning and implementation phases of their interventions, help to engage hospital leadership, garner local physician buy-in, and address institutional barriers. Mentors also guide hospitals to identify opportunities for the adaptation and customization of original evidence-based models of care while ensuring the fidelity of those models. More than 350 hospitals have used the PMI model to implement successful national and statewide QI initiatives. Academic medical centers are charged with improving the health of patients and reengineering care delivery; thus, they serve as the ideal source for physician mentors and can act as leaders in implementing QI projects using the PMI model.

Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE): Awareness and Prophylaxis Practices Reported by Patients with Cancer

Patients with cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). An online survey to measure PE/DVT terminology awareness and understanding of VTE risks revealed 24% and 15% of the 500 cancer patients surveyed had heard of term DVT/PE; 19% and 17% could name signs/ symptoms of DVT/PE; 3% recognized cancer treatments as risk factors for DVT/PE. Only 25% of the patients received prevention education from providers; <50% received VTE prophylaxis. Cancer patient awareness of VTE terminology and cancer and/or its treatment as risk for VTE is low. More effective patient/physician dialogue about VTE risk and thromboprophylaxis is needed.