首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Diabetes Spectrum : A Publication of the American Diabetes Association >Best Practices for Interdisciplinary Care Management by Hospital Glycemic Teams: Results of a Society of Hospital Medicine Survey Among 19 U.S. Hospitals
【2h】

Best Practices for Interdisciplinary Care Management by Hospital Glycemic Teams: Results of a Society of Hospital Medicine Survey Among 19 U.S. Hospitals

机译:医院血糖团队进行跨学科护理管理的最佳做法:美国19家医院的医院医学调查协会结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objective. The Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM) conducted a survey of U.S. hospital systems to determine how nonphysician providers (NPPs) are utilized in interdisciplinary glucose management teams.>Methods. An online survey grouped 50 questions into broad categories related to team functions. Queries addressed strategies that had proven successful, as well as challenges encountered. Fifty surveys were electronically distributed with an invitation to respond. A subset of seven respondents identified as having active glycemic committees that met at least every other month also participated in an in-depth telephone interview conducted by an SHM Glycemic Advisory Panel physician and NPP to obtain further details. The survey and interviews were conducted from May to July 2012.>Results. Nineteen hospital/hospital system teams completed the survey (38% response rate). Most of the teams (52%) had existed for 1–5 years and served 90–100% of noncritical care, medical critical care, and surgical units. All of the glycemic control teams were supported by the use of protocols for insulin infusion, basal-bolus subcutaneous insulin orders, and hypoglycemia management. However, > 20% did not have protocols for discontinuation of oral hypoglycemic agents on admission or for transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin infusion. About 30% lacked protocols assessing A1C during the admission or providing guidance for insulin pump management. One-third reported that glycemic triggers led to preauthorized consultation or assumption of care for hyperglycemia.Institutional knowledge assessment programs were common for nurses (85%); intermediate for pharmacists, nutritionists, residents, and students (40–45%); and uncommon for fellows (25%) and attending physicians (20%). Many institutions were not monitoring appropriate use of insulin, oral agents, or insulin protocol utilization. Although the majority of teams had a process in place for post-discharge referrals and specific written instructions were provided, only one-fourth were supported with written protocols to standardize medication, education, equipment, and follow-up instructions.>Conclusion. Inpatient glycemic control teams with NPPs often function in environments without a full set of measurement, education, standardization, transition, and order tools. Executive hospital leaders, community partners, and the glycemic control teams themselves need to address these deficiencies to optimize team effectiveness.
机译:>目标。医院医学协会(SHM)对美国医院系统进行了一项调查,以确定跨学科的血糖管理团队如何利用非医师提供者(NPP)。>方法。在线调查将50个问题分为与团队职能相关的广泛类别。查询涉及已证明成功的策略以及遇到的挑战。电子分发了50份调查问卷,并发出了答复。被确定具有活跃的降糖委员会的至少七个其他受访者中的一个子集至少每隔一个月见面一次,他们还参加了由SHM血糖咨询小组医师和NPP进行的深入电话采访,以获取更多详细信息。调查和访谈于2012年5月至2012年7月进行。>结果。十九个医院/医院系统团队完成了调查(答复率为38%)。大多数团队(52%)已经存在1-5年,为90%至100%的非重症监护,医学重症监护和外科部门提供服务。所有的血糖控制小组都通过使用胰岛素输注,基础推注皮下注射胰岛素命令和低血糖管理方案的支持。但是,> 20%的患者没有入院时停止口服降糖药治疗或从静脉内输注到皮下胰岛素输注的方案。约30%的患者缺乏在入院期间评估A1C或为胰岛素泵管理提供指导的方案。三分之一的人报告说,血糖触发因素导致对高血糖症进行预先授权的咨询或就诊。护士普遍采用机构知识评估计划(85%);药剂师,营养师,居民和学生的中级课程(40–45%);对于同伴(25%)和主治医师(20%)而言并不常见。许多机构没有监测胰岛素,口服药物或胰岛素方案使用的适当使用。尽管大多数团队都制定了出院后转诊流程,并提供了具体的书面说明,但只有四分之一的书面协议支持了药物,教育,设备和随访说明的标准化。>结论。 带有NPP的住院血糖控制团队通常在没有全套测量,教育,标准化,过渡和订购工具的环境中工作。行政医院领导,社区合作伙伴和血糖控制团队本身需要解决这些不足以优化团队效率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号