ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2018
What Can We Learn From Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Values Deleted and Repeated by Nurses?
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse Event Data for Years 2018 to 2020 for Diabetes Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- More Focus is Needed to Reduce Adverse Events for Diabetes Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Predictors of Time-to-Repeat Point-of-Care Glucose Following Hypoglycemic Events in Hospitalized Patients.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Article
- Inpatient Hypoglycemia: The Challenge Remains.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Review
- Getting More Information From Glucose Meter Evaluations.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitals rely on point-of-care (POC) blood glucose (BG) values to guide important decisions related to insulin administration and glycemic control. Evaluation of POC BG in hospitalized patients is associated with measurement and operator errors. Based on a previous quality improvement (QI) project we introduced an option for operators to delete and repeat POC BG values suspected as erroneous. The current project evaluated our experience with deleted POC BG values over a 2-year period.
methodA retrospective QI project included all patients hospitalized at two regional academic medical centers in the Pacific Northwest during 2014 and 2015. Laboratory Medicine POC BG data were reviewed to evaluate all inpatient episodes of deleted and repeated POC BG.
resultsInpatient operators choose to delete and repeat only 0.8% of all POC BG tests. Hypoglycemic and extreme hyperglycemic BG values are more likely to be deleted and repeated. Of initial values <40 mg/dL, 58% of deleted values (18% of all values) are errors. Of values >400 mg/dL, 40% of deleted values (5% of all values) are errors. Not all repeated POC BG values are first deleted. Optimal use of the option to delete and repeat POC BG values <40 mg/dL could decrease reported rates of severe hypoglycemia by as much as 40%.
conclusionsThis project demonstrates that operators are frequently able to identify POC BG values that are measurement/operator errors. Eliminating these errors significantly reduces documented rates of severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and has the potential to improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.