ArticleBMJ open2021
Evaluation of an implemented new insulin chart to improve quality and safety of diabetes care in a large university hospital: a follow-up study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Developing an Intervention for Safe Hospital Insulin Use for Older Adults With Diabetes Undergoing Surgical Admission (SHINE Study): A Co-Design Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate structure, documentation, treatment quality of a new implemented standardised insulin chart in adult medical inpatient wards at a university hospital.
designA before-after study (3 to 5 months after implementation) was used to compare the quality of old versus new insulin charts.
settingUniversity Hospital Graz, Austria.
participantsHealthcare professionals (n=237) were questioned regarding structure quality of blank insulin charts.
interventionsA new standardised insulin chart was implemented and healthcare professionals were trained regarding features of this chart. Data from insulinised inpatients were evaluated regarding documentation and treatment quality of filled-in insulin charts (n=108 old insulin charts vs n=100 new insulin charts). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary endpoint was documentation error for insulin administration.
resultsHealthcare professionals reported an improved structure quality of the new insulin chart with a Likert type response scale increase in all nine items. Documentation errors for insulin administration (primary endpoint) occurred more often on old than new insulin charts (77% vs 5%, p<0.001). Documentation errors for insulin prescription were more frequent on old insulin charts (100% vs 42%) whereas documentation errors for insulin management rarely occurred in any group (10% vs 8%). Patients of both chart evaluation groups (age: 71±11 vs 71±12 years, 47% vs 42% women, 75% vs 87% type 2 diabetes for old vs new charts, respectively) had a mean of 4±2 good diabetes days. Overall, 26 vs 18 hypoglycaemic episodes (blood glucose (BG) <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL), p=0.28), including 7 vs 2 severe hypoglycaemic episodes (BG <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), p=0.17) were documented on old versus new insulin charts.
conclusionsThe implementation of a structured documentation form together with training measures for healthcare professionals led to less documentation errors and safe management of glycaemic control in hospitalised patients in a short time follow-up. A rollout at further medical wards is recommended, and sustainability in the long-term has to be demonstrated.
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.