Marjorie Cypress

Nutrition Therapy Recommendations for the Management of Adults With Diabetes

There is no standard meal plan or eating pattern that works universally for all people with diabetes. In order to be effective, nutrition therapy should be individualized for each patient/client based on his or her individual health goals; personal and cultural preferences; health literacy and numeracy; access to healthful choices; and readiness, willingness, and ability to change. Nutrition interventions should emphasize a variety of minimally processed nutrient dense foods in appropriate portion sizes as part of a healthful eating pattern and provide the individual with diabetes with practical tools for day-to-day food plan and behavior change that can be maintained over the long term.

Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Type 2 Diabetes: A Joint Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

D IABETES ISACHRONICDISEASE that requires a person with diabetes to make a multitude of daily self-management decisions and to perform complex care activities. Diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S) provides the foundation to help people with diabetes to navigate these decisions and activities and has been shown to improve health outcomes. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the process of facilitating the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care. Diabetes selfmanagement support (DSMS) refers to the support that is required for implementing and sustaining coping skills and behaviors needed to self-manage on an ongoing basis. (See further definitions in Figure 1.) Although different members of the health care team and community can contribute to this process, it is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner. The initial

Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Type 2 Diabetes

From International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Dr Powers); MedStar Health Research Institute and MedStar Nursing, Hyattsville, Maryland (Ms Bardsley); ABQ Health Partners, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Dr Cypress); LifeScan, a Johnson & Johnson Diabetes Solutions Company, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Ms Duker); University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Ms Funnell); University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (Ms Fischl); Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts (Ms Maryniuk); School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Siminerio); and University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin (Dr Vivian).

Ophthalmic referral rates for patients with diabetes in primary-care clinics located in disadvantaged urban communities

The level of adherence with recommended standards for ophthalmic examinations was assessed in a purposive sample of diabetic patient charts (n = 350) from four clinics in medically underserved areas. All of the clinics referred patients with diabetes to off-site services for comprehensive eye examinations (dilation, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure); adherence with the standard of care was defined as a chart note indicating a referral for an ophthalmic examination. Overall, 86% of the patients were from high-risk minority groups (black or Hispanic) for diabetes and its complications. Mean age and duration of diabetes were 57.7 and 8.8 years, respectively. Referrals for ophthalmic exams were noted in 18% of the charts during the year preceding the review and in 28.6% of the charts during the 2 preceding years. Annual referrals in the preceding 2 years were noted in 3.1% of the charts. Eye disease was noted as a diagnosis in 22%. Patients who had a diagnosis of eye disease noted in their charts had a 7.5-fold increase in the odds of having a referral noted. The increased likelihood of being referred in patients with known eye disease may be due to follow-up of current eye problems.

Diabetes self-management education and support in type 2 diabetes: A joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of diabetes educators, and the Academy of nutrition and dietetics

Diabetes is a chronic disease that requires a person with diabetes to make a multitude of daily self-management decisions and to perform complex care activities. Diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S) provides the foundation to help people with diabetes to navigate these decisions and activities and has been shown to improve health outcomes (1–7). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the process of facilitating the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care. Diabetes self-management support (DSMS) refers to the support that is required for implementing and sustaining coping skills and behaviors needed to self-manage on an ongoing basis. (See further definitions in Table 1.) Although different members of the health care team and community can contribute to this process, it is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner. The initial DSME is typically provided by a health professional, whereas ongoing support can be provided by personnel within a practice and a variety of community-based resources. DSME/S programs are designed to address the patient’s health beliefs, cultural needs, current knowledge, physical limitations, emotional concerns, family support, financial status, medical history, health literacy, numeracy, and other factors that influence each person’s ability to meet the challenges of self-management. View this table: TABLE 1. Key Definitions It is the position of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) that all individuals with diabetes receive DSME/S at diagnosis and as needed thereafter (8). This position statement focuses on the particular needs of individuals with type 2 diabetes. The needs will be similar to those of people with other types of diabetes (type 1 diabetes, prediabetes, and gestational diabetes mellitus); however, the research and examples referred to in this article focus …

Translating the Research in Insulin Injection Technique Implications for Practice

Purpose Glucose variability leading to suboptimal glycemic control is common among people using injection therapies. Advanced technology and new studies have identified important issues related to injection technique: needle length and gauge, body mass index, skin and subcutaneous tissue thickness, adequate resuspension of cloudy insulins, leakage, choice of injection site and rotation, pinching a skinfold, and lipohypertrophy. All these issues can affect pain and bruising, insulin absorption, and blood glucose levels. The purpose of this article is to review current and past research regarding insulin injection therapy and to provide practical, translational information regarding injection technique, teaching/learning techniques specific to insulin administration, and implications for diabetes self-management education and support. Conclusion International injection recommendations for patients with diabetes have recently been published and have identified specific recommendations for health care professionals. This article provides an evidence-based translational and practical review of the research regarding injection technique and teaching/learning theory. Diabetes educators need to reevaluate how they provide instruction for the administration of insulin and other injectable medications. Research regarding skin and subcutaneous thickness reveals that shorter needles may be appropriate for the majority of patients regardless of body mass index. Periodic reassessment of injection technique, including suspension of cloudy insulins and inspection of injection sites for lipohypertrophy, is a critical aspect of the role of the diabetes educator. An injection checklist is provided as a guide for diabetes educators.

Diabetes Quality Assurance Checklist: Assessment of Inter-rater and Intra-rater Reliability:

The Diabetes Quality Assurance (DQA) Checklist was developed to measure adherence to standards of diabetes care. Two raters simultaneously scored a convenience sample of 23 charts of patients with diabetes. These raters scored each chart again 5-7 weeks later. Data obtained were used to assess inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was estimated for basic assessment at Time 1 (r = 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-0.97) and at Time 2 (r = 0. 91, 95% CI 0.81-0.96); and for high-risk assessment at Time 1 (r = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-0.95). Intra-rater reliability for the basic assessment was estimated for Reviewer 1 (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-0.93) and for Reviewer 2 (r = 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-0.89); the high-risk estimate for Review I was 0.60 (95% CI 0.25-0.81) and for Reviewer 2 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.99). The DQA Checklist is useful for monitoring and assessing diabetes care.

Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

In Brief Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered an essential component of diabetes self-management. However, research has yielded mixed results regarding the value of SMBG for people with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. Some studies have shown no benefit, whereas others have demonstrated improved A1C and behavior change linked to SMBG in a diabetes self-management education program that teaches how to use SMBG data. When used appropriately in these patients, SMBG can help to identify factors associated with hyper- and hypoglycemia, facilitate learning, and empower patients to make changes to improve their glycemic control. SMBG can also be useful to health care providers, who can teach patients to monitor glucose at specific times to assess the effectiveness of medications and guide medication management. All people with type 2 diabetes should be given the opportunity to learn about the value of and skills required to monitor blood glucose as appropriate to their specific needs.

Pharmaceutical Treatment of Hypertension and Dyslipidemia in People With Diabetes: An Educator’s Perspective

T.S. is a 49-year-old, divorced, African-American man who was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 4 years ago. He works as a court stenographer and is very active in community projects. The patient is on oral medication for his diabetes. However, his blood glucose levels remain > 200 mg/dl. His hemoglobin A1c (A1C) results have ranged between 8 and 9% over the past year. He denies symptoms of polyuria, polyphagia, polydipsia, or nocturia. He has no complaints of fatigue, blurred vision, chest pain, dyspnea on exertion, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, early satiety, paraesthesias in his extremities, or burning pain in his feet. There is no family history of diabetes. The patient’s father died of myocardial infarction at age 55. His mother is alive and well. Medications and supplements the patient uses include glyburide, 10 mg twice daily; zestril, 40 mg at bedtime; gingko; and a multivitamin. T.S. has truncal obesity with a BMI of 39 kg/m2. He lives alone, often skips breakfast, and eats most other meals out. He does not follow any kind of meal plan. Diet history reveals large portion sizes because of the frequent restaurant meals. His daily intake is 2,800 calories, of which 42% is fat, 15% is saturated fat, 15% is protein, and 43% is carbohydrate. The patient says he is unable to do any exercise because his arthritic knees hurt him too much. He also states that he is too busy, and it is too dangerous to walk in his neighborhood because the dogs might attack him. T.S. stopped smoking 15 years ago. Before that time, he smoked one pack of cigarettes per day for 10 years. He drinks one to two glasses of wine with dinner 5–7 days of the week.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

This article was copublished in Diabetes Care 2017;40:1409–1419 and The Diabetes Educator 2017;43:449–464 and is reprinted with permission. The previous version of this article, also copublished in Diabetes Care and The Diabetes Educator, can be found at Diabetes Care 2012;35:2393–2401 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1707).