Search

Objective Most preventable adverse drug events and medication errors occur during medication ordering. Medication order entry and clinical decision support are available on paper or as computerized systems. In this post-hoc analysis we investigated frequency and clinical impact of blood glucose (BG) documentation- and user-related calculation errors as well as workflow deviations in diabetes management. We aimed to compare a paper-based protocol to a computerized medication management system combined with clinical workflow and decision support. Methods Seventy-nine hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with an algorithm driven basal-bolus insulin regimen. BG measurements, which were the basis for insulin dose calculations, were manually entered either into the paper-based workflow protocol (PaperG: 37 patients) or into GlucoTab ® —a mobile tablet PC based system (CompG: 42 patients). We used BG values from the laboratory information system as a reference. A workflow simulator was used to determine user calculation errors as well as workflow deviations and to estimate the effect of errors on insulin doses. The clinical impact of insulin dosing errors and workflow deviations on hypo- and hyperglycemia was investigated. Results The BG documentation error rate was similar for PaperG (4.9%) and CompG group (4.0%). In PaperG group, 11.1% of manual insulin dose calculations were erroneous and the odds ratio (OR) of a hypoglycemic event following an insulin dosing error was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.4–6.8). The number of BG values influenced by insulin dosing errors was eightfold higher than in the CompG group. In the CompG group, workflow deviations occurred in 5.0% of the tasks which led to an increased likelihood of hyperglycemia, OR 2.2 (95% CI: 1.1–4.6). Discussion Manual insulin dose calculations were the major source of error and had a particularly strong influence on hypoglycemia. By using GlucoTab ® , user calculation errors were entirely excluded. The immediate availability and automated handling of BG values from medical devices directly at the point of care has a high potential to reduce errors. Computerized systems facilitate the safe use of more complex insulin dosing algorithms without compromising usability. In CompG group, missed or delayed tasks had a significant effect on hyperglycemia, while in PaperG group insufficient precision of documentation times limited analysis. The use of old BG measurements was clinically less relevant. Conclusion Insulin dosing errors and workflow deviations led to measurable changes in clinical outcome. Diabetes management systems including decision support should address nurses as well as physicians in a computerized way. Our analysis shows that such systems reduce the frequency of errors and therefore decrease the probability of hypo- and hyperglycemia.

Background: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and usability of standardized glycemic management by a computerized decision support system for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes on four different wards. Materials and Methods: In this open, noncontrolled intervention study, glycemic management of 99 patients with type 2 diabetes (62% acute admissions; 41 females; age, 67±11 years; hemoglobin A1c, 65±21 mmol/mol; body mass index, 30.4±6.5 kg/m2) on clinical wards (Cardiology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Plastic Surgery) of a tertiary-care hospital was guided by GlucoTab® (Joanneum Research GmbH [Graz, Austria] and Medical University of Graz [Graz, Austria]), a mobile decision support system providing automated workflow support and suggestions for insulin dosing to nurses and physicians. Results: Adherence to insulin dosing suggestions was high (96.5% bolus, 96.7% basal). The primary outcome measure, percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in the range of 70–140 mg/dL, occurred in 50.2±22.2% of all measurements. The overall mean BG level was 154±35 mg/dL. BG measurements in the ranges of 60–70 mg/dL, 40–60 mg/dL, and

Inpatient glucose management is based on four daily capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. The aim was to test the capability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for assessing the clinical impact and safety of basal-bolus insulin therapy in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Eighty-four patients with T2DM (age, 68±10 years; glycosylated hemoglobin, 72±28 mmol/mol; body mass index, 31±7 kg/m(2)) were treated with basal-bolus insulin. CGM was performed with the iPro(®)2 system (Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) and calibrated retrospectively.A remarkable consistency between CGM and BG measurements and therapy improvement was shown over the study period of 501 patient-days. The number of CGM and BG measurements (CGM/BG) in the range from 3.9-10 mmol/L increased from 67.7%/67.2% (on Day 1) to 77.5%/78.6% (on the last day) (P0.04). The number of low glycemic episodes (3.3 to3.9 mmol/L) during nighttime detected by CGM was 15-fold higher, and the number of episodes13.9 mmol/L detected by CGM during night was 12.5-fold higher than the values from the BG measurements. Ninety-nine percent of data points were in the clinically accurate or acceptable Clarke Error Grid Zones A+B, and the relative numbers of correctly identified episodes of3.9 and13.9 mmol/L detected by CGM (sensitivity) were 47.3% and 81.5%, respectively.Our data exhibit a good agreement between overall CGM and BG measurements, but there were a high number of missed hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes with BG measurements, particularly during nighttime. Overall assessment of glycemic control using CGM is feasible, whereas the use of CGM for individualized therapy decisions needs further improvement.

A1 Meet the needs: Important questions for ICU relatives Magdalena M. Hoffmann1,2, Anna K. Holl3, Harald Burgsteiner4, Thomas Pieber1,5, Philipp Eller6, Karin Amrein1 A2 Daily use of the Surgical Safety Checklist: results of a real-time audit Gerald Sendlhofer1,2,3, Karina Leitgeb1, Veronika Gombotz1, Peter Tiefenbacher1, Lars-Peter Kamolz2,3 A3 Best-practice projects concerning patient safety in Austria Gerald Sendlhofer1,2,3,4, , Karina Leitgeb1,4, Magdalena Hoffmann1,4, Sabine Papst1,4, Susanne Gasteiner1,4, Lars Peter Kamolz2,3,4 A4 Comprehensive Cancer Center Graz: evaluation of availability of mandatory healthcare professionals in tumorboards Peter Tiefenbacher1,2, Yvonne Muller1,2, Gerald Sendlhofer1,2,3,4 A5 Comprehensive Cancer Center Graz: protocol to evaluate communication and recommendation finding in tumorboards Marlies Hart1, Peter Tiefenbacher1,2, Yvonne Muller1,2, Gerald Sendlhofer1,2,3,4 A6 Generating a new insulin prescription chart at a university hospital Julia Kopanz1, Katharina M. Neubauer1, Gerald Sendlhofer2,3,4, Barbara Semlitsch1, Andres Pak5, Gerald Cuder1, Thomas R. Pieber1, Johannes Plank6 A7 The Speech and Language Therapy teaching practice at the Institute for Speech and Language Therapy at FH JOANNEUM in Graz Annemarie Schinko1, Angelika Rother1 A8 Development and implementation of a progress test in undergraduate dental education: a prospective Austrian pilot project Barbara Kirnbauer1, Petra Rugani1, Norbert Jakse1, Johannes Bernhardt-Melischnig2, Rudolf Egger3 A9 What they need and what they get: protocol to identify the needs of information of patients and what they receive so far Magdalena M. Hoffmann1,2, Karina Leitgeb1,3, Esther Trampusch4,5, Angelika Hofer4, Regina Riedl6, Karin Amrein2, Christa Tax7, Gernot Brunner7, Gerald Sendlhofer,1,3,8 A 10 Medication-related problems resolved and money saved: results of a clinical pharmacy service evaluation in the surgical setting Emilie Tudela-Lopez1, Petra Polzleitner1, Klara Jadrna1, Christina Labut1, Maria Kundracikova1, Helga Fend1, Gunar Stemer1 A 11 Intercultural communication management in radiology Jutta Maria Lorenz1 A 12 Spotlight on data quality: comparison of data input by physicians vs. non-physicians in the German Resuscitation Registry Gerhard Prause1, Paul Zajic1, Philipp Zoidl1, Geza Gemes1 A 13 MRSA prevalence and eradication with octenidine Gerald Pichler1, Christian Pux1, Rita Babeluk2, Brigitte Hermann3, Eric Stoiser3, Antonella De Campo4, Andrea Grisold5, Ines Zollner-Schwetz6, Robert Krause6, Walter Schippinger4 A 14 QUIPS: a pain registry with impact in science and daily routine work Alexander Avian1,2, Brigitte Messerer3, Claudia Weinmann2, Winfried Meisner2 A 15 Patient empowerment for the youngest Karina Leitgeb1, Magdalena Hoffmann1, Gerald Sendlhofer1,2,3 A 16 Development of a pocket guide for parenteral nutrition in hospitalized adults Anna Maria Eisenberger1, Siegrid Fuchs2 A 17 Safety and efficacy of a clinical decision support system for blood glucose management in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 at a plastic-surgical ward Alexandru-C. Tuca1, Katharina M. Neubauer2, Julia K. Mader2, Felix Aberer2 , David B. Lumenta1, Birgit Bauer1 ,Klaus Donsa3 , Thomas Augustin3 , Bernhard Holl3 , Lukas Schaupp2, Peter Beck4, Johannes Plank2 , Thomas R. Pieber2,3, Lars-P. Kamolz1,5 A 18 Urban dwellers show higher readiness in participating actively in the shaping of the healthcare system in Austria Christian Smolle1, Frederike Reischies2, Gudrun Pregartner3, Daryousch Parvizi2, Gerald Sendlhofer1,4, Lars-Peter Kamolz1,4

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a new-generation basal insulin that forms soluble multi-hexamers upon subcutaneous injection, resulting in a depot from which IDeg monomers are slowly and continuously absorbed to provide an ultra-long action profile. This double-blind, crossover, randomized study compared the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties between IDeg 100 U/mL (U100) and IDeg 200 U/mL (U200) under steady-state (SS) conditions in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Participants (n = 33 adults) underwent 8-day treatment periods with 0.4 U/kg IDeg U100 and IDeg U200 given once daily with insulin aspart at mealtimes. On day 8, a 26-h euglycaemic glucose clamp (5.5 mmol/L) was performed.The concentration-time profiles of IDeg U100 and IDeg U200 were similar, and a post-hoc analysis showed bioequivalence between these formulations, as the 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the U200/U100 ratios for area under the steady-state serum IDeg concentration-time curve during a dosing interval (τ; 0-24 h) (AUCτ,SS,IDeg) (0.99 [0.91-1.07]) and maximum steady-state IDeg concentration during a dosing interval (τ) (C max,SS,IDeg) (0.93 [0.84-1.02]) were within the interval 0.80-1.25. Comparable glucose infusion rates (GIR) were observed for IDeg U100 and IDeg U200 (AUCτ,SS,GIR [mg/kg]: 2,255 vs. 2,123) and the mean ratio (95 % CI) of IDeg U200/U100 for the primary endpoint (AUCτ,SS,GIR) was 0.94 [0.86-1.03]. For both formulations, the glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was evenly distributed between the first and second 12 h post-dosing (U100: AUC12,SS,GIR/AUC24,SS,GIR = 48 %; U200: AUC12,SS,GIR/AUC24,SS,GIR = 46 %). Both formulations were well tolerated, and no safety events of significance were identified.IDeg U100 and U200 formulations are bioequivalent and have similar pharmacodynamic profiles at SS, implying that they can be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

Aims To evaluate glycaemic control and usability of a workflow-integrated algorithm for basal–bolus insulin therapy in a proof-of-concept study to develop a decision support system in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods In this ward-controlled study, 74 type 2 diabetes patients (24 female, age 68 ± 11 years, HbA1c 8.7 ± 2.4% and body mass index 30 ± 7) were assigned to either algorithm-based treatment with a basal–bolus insulin therapy or to standard glycaemic management. Algorithm performance was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring and staff's adherence to algorithm-calculated insulin dose. Results Average blood glucose levels (mmol/l) in the algorithm group were significantly reduced from 11.3 ± 3.6 (baseline) to 8.2 ± 1.8 (last 24 h) over a period of 7.5 ± 4.6 days (p

Successful control of hyperglycemia has been shown to improve outcomes for diabetes patients in a clinical setting. We assessed the quality of physician-based glycemic management in two general wards, considering the most recent recommendations for glycemic control for noncritically ill patients (140 mg/dl for premeal glucose).Quality of glycemic management of 50 patients in two wards (endocrinology, cardiology) was assessed retrospectively by analyzing blood glucose (BG) levels, the glycemic management effort, and the online questionnaire.Glycemic control was clearly above the recommended target (mean BG levels: endocrinology: 175 ± 62 mg/dl; cardiology: 186 ± 68 mg/dl). When comparing the first half with the second half of the hospital stay, we found no difference in glycemic control (endocrinology: 168 ± 32 vs 164 ± 42 mg/dl, P = .67; cardiology: 174 ± 36 mg/dl vs 170 ± 42 mg/dl, P =.51) and in insulin dose (endocrinology: 15 ± 14 IU vs 15 ± 13 IU per day, P = .87; cardiology: 27 ± 17 IU vs 27 ± 18 IU per day, P = .92), despite frequent BG measurements (endocrinology: 2.7 per day; cardiology: 3.2 per day). A lack of clearly defined BG targets was indicated in the questionnaire.The recommended BG target range was not achieved in both wards. Analysis of routine glycemic management demonstrated considerable glycemic management effort, but also a lack of translation into adequate insulin therapy. Implementation of corrective measures, such as structured treatment protocols, is essential.