Search

Introduction: Increasing numbers of people admitted to hospital have diabetes and need specialist support. To date, there is no mechanism which can help teams estimate the number of health care professionals they need to provide optimal care for people with diabetes in hospitals. Methods: The Joint British Diabetes Societies (JBDS) for Inpatient Care Group organised a survey of specialist inpatient diabetes teams in the UK for current staffing and the perception of optimal staffing using mailing lists available through their representative organisations. The results were verified and confirmed by one‐to‐one conversations with individual respondents and discussed in multiple expert‐group meetings to agree on the results. Results: Responses were received from 17 Trusts covering 30 hospital sites. Current diabetes specialist staffing level per 100 people with diabetes in hospital (Median, IQR) for consultants was 0.24 (0.22–0.37), diabetes inpatient specialist nurses was 1.94 (1.22–2.6), dieticians was 0.00 (0.00–0.00), podiatrists was 0.19 (0.00–0.62), pharmacists was 0.00 (0.00–0.37), psychologists was 0.00 (0.00–0.00). The teams also reported that for optimal care the total staff needed for each group (Median, IQR) was much higher; consultants 0.65 (0.50–0.88), specialist nurses 3.38 (2.78–4.59), dieticians 0.48 (0.33–0.72), podiatrists, 0.93 (0.65–1.24), pharmacists, 0.65 (0.40–0.79) and psychologists 0.33 (0.27–0.58). Based on the results of the survey, the JBDS expert group produced an Excel calculator to estimate staffing needs of any hospital site in question just by populating a few of the cells. Conclusion: Current inpatient diabetes staffing is much lower than needed in most Trusts who responded to the survey. The JBDS calculator can provide an estimate of the staffing needs of any hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Adolescents with Type 1 diabetes commonly experience episodes of ketoacidosis. In 2014, we conducted a nationwide survey on the management of diabetic ketoacidosis in young people. The survey reported how individual adolescents with diabetes were managed. However, the costs of treating diabetic ketoacidosis were not reported. Methods: Using this mixed population sample of adolescents, we took a 'bottom‐up' approach to cost analysis aiming to determine the total expense associated with treating diabetic ketoacidosis. The data were derived using the information from the national UK survey of 71 individuals, collected via questionnaires sent to specialist paediatric diabetes services in England and Wales. Results: Several assumptions had to be made when analysing the data because the initial survey collection tool was not designed with a health economic model in mind. The mean time to resolution of diabetic ketoacidosis was 15.0 h [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2, 16.8] and the mean total length of stay was 2.4 days (95% CI 1.9, 3.0). Based on data for individuals and using the British Society of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BSPED) guidelines, the cost analysis shows that for this cohort, the average cost for an episode of diabetic ketoacidosis was £1387 (95% CI 1120, 1653). Regression analysis showed a significant cost saving of £762 (95% CI 140, 1574; P = 0.04) among those treated using BSPED guidelines. Conclusion: We have used a bottom‐up approach to calculate the costs of an episode of diabetic ketoacidosis in adolescents. These data suggest that following treatment guidelines can significantly lower the costs for managing episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. What's new?: Adolescents with Type 1 diabetes frequently experience diabetic ketoacidosis. However, how much treating this condition costs in this age group remains unknown in the UK.We used the 2014 national survey data set to conduct a novel, 'bottom‐up' approach to cost analysis.Our data suggest that the average cost of an episode of diabetic ketoacidosis in an adolescent in the UK in 2014 was £1387.Use of the British Society of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes guidelines was associated with a significant £762 reduction in costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: The risk of dying within 2 years of presentation with diabetic foot ulceration is over six times the risk of amputation, with CVD the major contributor. Using an observational evaluation of a real-world implementation pilot, we aimed to assess whether for those presenting with diabetic foot ulceration in England, introducing a 12-lead ECG into routine care followed by appropriate clinical action was associated with reduced mortality., Methods: Between July 2014 and December 2017, ten multidisciplinary diabetic foot services in England participated in a pilot project introducing 12-lead ECGs for new attendees with foot ulceration. Inception coincided with launch of the National Diabetes Footcare Audit (NDFA), whereby all diabetic footcare services in England were invited to enter data on new attendees with foot ulceration. Poisson regression models assessed the mortality RR at 2 and 5 years following first assessment of those receiving care in a participating pilot unit vs those receiving care in any other unit in England, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, type and duration of diabetes, ulcer severity, and morbidity in the year prior to first assessment., Results: Of the 3110 people recorded in the NDFA at a participating unit during the pilot, 33% (1015) were recorded as having received an ECG. A further 25,195 people recorded in the NDFA had attended another English footcare service. Unadjusted mortality in the pilot units was 16.3% (165) at 2 years and 37.4% (380) at 5 years for those who received an ECG, and 20.5% (430) and 45.2% (950), respectively, for those who did not receive an ECG. For people included in the NDFA at other units, unadjusted mortality was 20.1% (5075) and 42.6% (10,745), respectively. In the fully adjusted model, mortality was not significantly lower for those attending participating units at 2 (RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.85, 1.01]) or 5 years (RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.90, 1.01]). At participating units, mortality in those who received an ECG vs those who did not was lower at 5 years (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.76, 0.97]), but not at 2 years (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.72, 1.04]). Comparing just those that received an ECG with attendees at all other centres in England, mortality was lower at 5 years (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.78, 0.96]), but not at 2 years (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.74, 1.01])., Conclusions/interpretation: The evaluation confirms the high mortality seen in those presenting with diabetic foot ulceration. Overall mortality at the participating units was not significantly reduced at 2 or 5 years, with confidence intervals just crossing parity. Implementation of the 12-lead ECG into the routine care pathway proved challenging for clinical teams-overall a third of attendees had one, although some units delivered the intervention to over 60% of attendees-and the evaluation was therefore underpowered. Nonetheless, the signals of potential mortality benefit among those who had an ECG suggest that units in a position to operationalise implementation may wish to consider this., Data Availability: Data from the National Diabetes Audit can be requested through the National Health Service Digital Data Access Request Service process at: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars/dars-products-and-services/data-set-catalogue/national-diabetes-audit-nda., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) has been reported to be increasing in frequency during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to examine the rates of DKA hospital admissions and the patient demographics associated with DKA during the pandemic compared with in prepandemic years., Methods: Using a comprehensive, multiethnic, national dataset, the Secondary Uses Service repository, we extracted all emergency hospital admissions in England coded with DKA from March 1 to June 30, 2020 (first wave of the pandemic), July 1 to Oct 31, 2020 (post-first wave), and Nov 1, 2020, to Feb 28, 2021 (second wave), and compared these with DKA admissions in the equivalent periods in 2017-20. We also examined baseline characteristics, mortality, and trends in patients who were admitted with DKA., Findings: There were 8553 admissions coded with DKA during the first wave, 8729 during the post-first wave, and 10 235 during the second wave. Compared with preceding years, DKA admissions were 6% (95% CI 4-9; p<0·0001) higher in the first wave of the pandemic (from n=8048), 6% (3-8; p<0·0001) higher in the post-first wave (from n=8260), and 7% (4-9; p<0·0001) higher in the second wave (from n=9610). In the first wave, DKA admissions reduced by 19% (95% CI 16-21) in those with pre-existing type 1 diabetes (from n=4965 to n=4041), increased by 41% (35-47) in those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes (from n=2010 to n=2831), and increased by 57% (48-66) in those with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1072 to n=1681). Compared with prepandemic, type 2 diabetes DKA admissions were similarly common in older individuals and men but were higher in those of non-White ethnicities during the first wave. The increase in newly diagnosed DKA admissions occurred across all age groups and these were significantly increased in men and people of non-White ethnicities. In the post-first wave, DKA admissions did not return to the baseline level of previous years; DKA admissions were 14% (11-17) lower in patients with type 1 diabetes (from n=5208 prepandemic to n=4491), 30% (24-36) higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (from n=2011 to n=2613), and 56% (47-66) higher in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1041 to n=1625). During the second wave, DKA admissions were 25% (22-27) lower in patients with type 1 diabetes (from n=5769 prepandemic to n=4337), 50% (44-56) higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (from n=2608 to n=3912), and 61% (52-70) higher in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1234 to n=1986)., Interpretation: Our results provide evidence for differences in the numbers and characteristics of people presenting with DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with in the preceding 3 years. Greater awareness of risk factors for DKA in type 2 diabetes and vigilance for newly diagnosed diabetes presenting with DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic might help mitigate the increased impact of DKA., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SM, EB, PK, BY, KK, and JV are members of clinical advisory groups to the NDA. SM is a trustee of the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation and has a grant in support of an investigator-initiated study from DexCom. PK, BY, KK, and JV are members of the NDA research committee. ST has received honoraria for speaking from Lilly and Sanofi-Aventis. KD has received honoraria for speaking and travel grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis; is Chair of the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care; and is committee member of the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists. PK is National Specialty Adviser for Diabetes and Obesity at NHS England and NHS Improvement. BY is clinical lead for the NDA and a trustee of Diabetes UK. KK has been a consultant and speaker for Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received grants in support of investigator-initiated studies from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and is Chair of the Ethnicity Subgroup of Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and member of SAGE. JV is the National Clinical Director for Diabetes and Obesity at NHS England and NHS Improvement. EV declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Nearly half of the older adult population has diabetes or a high-risk intermediate glycemic category, but we still lack trial evidence for effective type 2 diabetes prevention interventions in most of the current high-risk glycemic categories., Objective: To determine whether a group-based lifestyle intervention (with or without trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes) reduced the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in populations with a high-risk glycemic category., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study was a parallel, 3-arm, group-based, randomized clinical trial conducted with up to 46 months of follow-up from August 2011 to January 2019 at 135 primary care practices and 8 intervention sites in the East of England. We identified 141 973 people at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, screened 12 778 (9.0%), and randomized those with a high-risk glycemic category, which was either an elevated fasting plasma glucose level alone (≥110 and <126 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]) or an elevated glycated hemoglobin level (≥6.0% to <6.5%; nondiabetic hyperglycemia) with an elevated fasting plasma glucose level (≥100 to <110 mg/dL)., Interventions: A control arm receiving usual care (CON), a theory-based lifestyle intervention arm of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with support from diabetes prevention mentors, trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes (INT-DPM)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Type 2 diabetes incidence between arms., Results: In this study, 1028 participants were randomized (INT, 424 [41.2%] [166 women (39.2%)]; INT-DPM, 426 [41.4%] [147 women (34.5%)]; CON, 178 [17.3%] [70 women (%39.3)]) between January 1, 2011, and February 24, 2017. The mean (SD) age was 65.3 (10.0) years, mean (SD) body mass index 31.2 (5) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and mean (SD) follow-up 24.7 (13.4) months. A total of 156 participants progressed to type 2 diabetes, which comprised 39 of 171 receiving CON (22.8%), 55 of 403 receiving INT (13.7%), and 62 of 414 receiving INT-DPM (15.0%). There was no significant difference between the intervention arms in the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.7; P = .51), but each intervention arm had significantly lower odds of type 2 diabetes (INT: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; P = .01; INT-DPM: OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033; combined: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P = .01). The effect size was similar in all glycemic, age, and social deprivation groups, and intervention costs per participant were low at $153 (£122)., Conclusions and Relevance: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention lifestyle intervention reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes in current high-risk glycemic categories. Enhancing the intervention with DPM did not further reduce diabetes risk. These translatable results are relevant for current diabetes prevention efforts., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry Identifier: ISRCTN34805606.

Background: People with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of postoperative complications if their HbA1C readings are not well controlled. In the UK, there are clear national guidelines requiring all people with DM to have HbA1C blood testing within 6months before undergoing surgery and that these readings should be below 69 mmol/mol if this is safe to achieve. The aim of this study was to determine whether hospitals in the region were compliant with the guidelines., Methods: Data were prospectively collected from seven hospitals across the East of England region from 1st October 2017 to 31st March 2018 (6 months) in all people with DM undergoing elective day case procedures in General and Vascular surgery for benign disease., Results: A total of 181 people with DM were included in the study, of whom 77.9% were male patients and the median age was 63 years. The three most commonly performed operations were laparoscopic cholecystectomy (20.9%, n = 38/181), inguinal hernia repair (20.4%, n = 37/181) and umbilical/para-umbilical hernia repair (11.0%, n = 20/181). In keeping with the national guidelines, only 86.7% (n = 157/181) of patients had an HbA1C tested within 6 months prior to their surgery date. Of the patients who had a preoperative HbA1C, 14 (n = 14/157, 8.9%) had an HbA1C ≥ 69 mmol/mol, and 12 (n = 12/14, 85.7%) of these proceeded to surgery without optimisation of their HbA1C., Conclusion: A significant proportion of people with diabetes undergoing elective day case procedures in our region do not have HbA1C testing within 6 months of their procedure as recommended by the national guidelines. In patients who do have a high HbA1C, the majority still undergo surgery without adequate control of their DM. Greater awareness amongst healthcare workers and robust pathways are required for this vulnerable group of patients if we are to reduce the risk of developing postoperative complication rates., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To investigate factors influencing diagnostic discordance for non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes., Methods: Some 10 000 adults at increased risk of diabetes were screened with HbA 1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The 2208 participants with initial HbA 1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (≥ 6.0%) or FPG ≥ 6.1 mmol/l were retested after a median 40 days. We compared the first and second HbA 1c results, and consequent diagnoses of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes, and investigated predictors of discordant diagnoses., Results: Of 1463 participants with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and 394 with Type 2 diabetes on first testing, 28.4% and 21.1% respectively had discordant diagnoses on repeated testing. Initial diagnosis of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and/or impaired fasting glucose according to both HbA 1c and FPG criteria, or to FPG only, made reclassification as Type 2 diabetes more likely than initial classification according to HbA 1c alone. Initial diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes according to both HbA 1c and FPG criteria made reclassification much less likely than initial classification according to HbA 1c alone. Age, and anthropometric and biological measurements independently but inconsistently predicted discordant diagnoses and changes in HbA 1c ., Conclusions: Diagnosis of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia or Type 2 diabetes with a single measurement of HbA 1c in a screening programme for entry to diabetes prevention trials is unreliable. Diagnosis of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and Type 2 diabetes should be confirmed by repeat testing. FPG results could help prioritise retesting. These findings do not apply to people classified as normal on a single test, who were not retested., (© 2019 Diabetes UK.)

Aims: Older individuals with diabetes are susceptible to harm as the result of hypoglycaemia; however, the consequences of hypoglycaemia in older individuals with dementia are not known. We aimed to test the association between hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events in older patients with diabetes and dementia, and whether the consequences of hypoglycaemia were affected by the presence of dementia., Materials and Methods: This was a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England (1997-2016). We selected participants, intervention (exposure) and follow-up to mirror two hypothetical target randomized controlled trials. The exposure of target trial 1 was hypoglycaemia in patients with dementia. Target trial 2 examined adverse effects of hypoglycaemia according to dementia status. We used Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for falls, fractures, cardiovascular events and mortality., Results: In target trial 1, hypoglycaemia was associated with increased risk during a 12-month follow-up period for falls and fractures (aHR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67-2.24]), for cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.61-2.48]) and for mortality (aHR, 2.36 [95% CI, 2.09-2.67]). In target trial 2, the presence of dementia was associated with increased risk of adverse events, following hypoglycaemia, during a 12-month follow-up period for falls and factures (aHR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.51-1.96]) and for mortality (aHR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.15-1.41]), but dementia had no effect on cardiovascular events (aHR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.36])., Conclusions: Hypoglycaemia is associated with early increased risk of serious adverse events in older individuals with diabetes and dementia., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To compare diabetes bed occupancy and inpatient length of stay, before and after the introduction of a dedicated diabetes inpatient specialist nurse (DISN) service in a large UK Hospital., Methods: We analysed bed occupancy data for medical or surgical inpatients for 6 years (1998-2004 inclusive), with a DISN service in the final 2 years. Excess bed days per diabetes patient were derived from age band, specialty, and seasonally matched data for all inpatients without diabetes. We also analysed the number of inpatients with known diabetes who did not have diabetes recorded as a discharge diagnosis., Results: There were 14,722 patients with diabetes (9.7% of all inpatients) who accounted for 101 564 occupied bed days (12.4% of total). Of these, 18 161 days (17.8%) were excess compared with matched patients without diabetes, and were concentrated in those < 75 years old. Mean excess bed days per diabetes inpatient under 60 years of age was estimated to be 1.9 days before the DISN appointment, and this was reduced to 1.2 bed days after the appointment (P = 0.03). This is equivalent to 700 bed days saved per year per 1000 inpatients with diabetes under 60 years old, with an identical saving for those aged 61-75 years (P = 0.008), a saving of 1330 diabetes bed days per year by one DISN. Excess diabetes bed occupancy was 167 excess bed days per year per 1000 patients with diabetes in the local population after the DISN appointment. One quarter of the known Type 2 diabetes population were admitted annually, but one quarter of patients had no diagnostic code for diabetes., Conclusions: Diabetes excess bed occupancy was concentrated in patients < 75 years old, and this was reduced notably following the introduction of a DISN service.