GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units

Background and aims Untreated stress-induced hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients has been associated with harmful effects, which can even be fatal. Current evidence about the optimal glycaemic targets, and the most effective and safest methods of glycaemic control (GC) in intensive care uni...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fernández Méndez, Rocío
Format: Thesis (University of Nottingham only)
Language:English
Published: 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42920/
_version_ 1848796602258423808
author Fernández Méndez, Rocío
author_facet Fernández Méndez, Rocío
author_sort Fernández Méndez, Rocío
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description Background and aims Untreated stress-induced hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients has been associated with harmful effects, which can even be fatal. Current evidence about the optimal glycaemic targets, and the most effective and safest methods of glycaemic control (GC) in intensive care units (ICU), is contradictory. GlyCon study aimed to investigate the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of the monitoring and insulin treatment methods for GC implemented in the seven ICUs of an NHS ICU network in the UK. In addition, GlyCon study also aimed to explore the contents of the local protocols for GC of these ICUs, as well as the views of ICU professionals about several aspects of GC. Methodology A multi-method study was undertaken, comprising three sub‑studies: (1) a document review of the protocols for GC designed by and implemented at each of the participating ICUs, using techniques of inductive content analysis and descriptive statistics; (2) an online survey to ICU medical and nursing staff, on their opinion about effective GC, and deviations from protocol instructions, which was analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression; (3) A retrospective study about the methods and outcomes of GC, based on a review of electronic and manual medical records of a stratified random sample of 146 patients admitted to the seven participating ICUs during 2012 and 2013. The main analyses of association between the exposures and the primary outcome measure (percentage of time with glycaemic levels of 4‑10mmol/L, or TIR, which was transformed into the odds of being within that range at any time, or odds of IR), were mainly based on generalised estimating equations using the logit link, and autoregressive correlation structure. Secondary outcome measures of time‑efficiency and safety were also investigated, and analysed using univariate statistics and multiple log‑linear regression. Results The protocols for GC implemented in the seven ICUs differed greatly in their target patients, target glycaemic levels, recommended methods for monitoring, and insulin titration algorithms, among others. Most of the 40 respondents to the survey agreed that TIR≥75% constitutes good GC and TIR<50% constitutes poor GC. Opinions were divided on intermediate levels of TIR, with professionals having more experience in intensive care tending to rate such intermediate TIR as poor GC more often than their less experienced colleagues. Most of the proposed protocol deviations were considered as major by at least two thirds of the respondents. Professionals’ role (nurse vs. physician) and their number of years of experience were significantly associated with different views. The blood glucose (BG) monitoring frequencies and insulin hourly dosages, at each glycaemic status, differed by ICU, and between patients with and without diabetes. Non‑adherence to protocol instructions regarding BG monitoring and insulin infusion rates occurred more often than not. The median (IQR) TIR was 91% (81‑96%) and 56% (34‑71%) among patients without and with diabetes, respectively. A number of time-dependent and time-constant factors were associated with higher odds of IR at any time. Time-constant protective factors included: having spent more than 20% of admission time receiving insulin during hyperglycaemia, certain ICU protocols, and lower levels of severity on admission. Time-dependent protective factors were: the number of hours from admission, and the dobutamine and insulin hourly dosages. Time-dependent detrimental factors were: non‑adherence to protocol insulin instructions, the hourly nutritional energy administered, and the hourly dosage of certain drugs, including adrenaline and hydrocortisone. Conclusions Protocols for GC, practice of GC, and outcomes of GC, all differed significantly across hospitals. Some protocols seemed more effective, time‑efficient or safe than others, but there was a high incidence of non‑adherence to protocol instructions in all ICUs. This contrasts with professionals rating deviations from protocols as major, more often than not. Certain monitoring and insulin treatment methods for GC were more effective, and some were more time‑efficient than others, particularly among patients without diabetes. There is a clear need for protocols to include different recommendations for patients with diabetes, as well as to formally emphasise the importance of GC also in patients without diabetes. ICU multidisciplinary teams should be involved in the development of these protocols, and their views should be accounted for in research studies about the effectiveness of GC in the ICU.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:50:35Z
format Thesis (University of Nottingham only)
id nottingham-42920
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
language English
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:50:35Z
publishDate 2017
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-429202025-02-28T13:46:30Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42920/ GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units Fernández Méndez, Rocío Background and aims Untreated stress-induced hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients has been associated with harmful effects, which can even be fatal. Current evidence about the optimal glycaemic targets, and the most effective and safest methods of glycaemic control (GC) in intensive care units (ICU), is contradictory. GlyCon study aimed to investigate the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of the monitoring and insulin treatment methods for GC implemented in the seven ICUs of an NHS ICU network in the UK. In addition, GlyCon study also aimed to explore the contents of the local protocols for GC of these ICUs, as well as the views of ICU professionals about several aspects of GC. Methodology A multi-method study was undertaken, comprising three sub‑studies: (1) a document review of the protocols for GC designed by and implemented at each of the participating ICUs, using techniques of inductive content analysis and descriptive statistics; (2) an online survey to ICU medical and nursing staff, on their opinion about effective GC, and deviations from protocol instructions, which was analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression; (3) A retrospective study about the methods and outcomes of GC, based on a review of electronic and manual medical records of a stratified random sample of 146 patients admitted to the seven participating ICUs during 2012 and 2013. The main analyses of association between the exposures and the primary outcome measure (percentage of time with glycaemic levels of 4‑10mmol/L, or TIR, which was transformed into the odds of being within that range at any time, or odds of IR), were mainly based on generalised estimating equations using the logit link, and autoregressive correlation structure. Secondary outcome measures of time‑efficiency and safety were also investigated, and analysed using univariate statistics and multiple log‑linear regression. Results The protocols for GC implemented in the seven ICUs differed greatly in their target patients, target glycaemic levels, recommended methods for monitoring, and insulin titration algorithms, among others. Most of the 40 respondents to the survey agreed that TIR≥75% constitutes good GC and TIR<50% constitutes poor GC. Opinions were divided on intermediate levels of TIR, with professionals having more experience in intensive care tending to rate such intermediate TIR as poor GC more often than their less experienced colleagues. Most of the proposed protocol deviations were considered as major by at least two thirds of the respondents. Professionals’ role (nurse vs. physician) and their number of years of experience were significantly associated with different views. The blood glucose (BG) monitoring frequencies and insulin hourly dosages, at each glycaemic status, differed by ICU, and between patients with and without diabetes. Non‑adherence to protocol instructions regarding BG monitoring and insulin infusion rates occurred more often than not. The median (IQR) TIR was 91% (81‑96%) and 56% (34‑71%) among patients without and with diabetes, respectively. A number of time-dependent and time-constant factors were associated with higher odds of IR at any time. Time-constant protective factors included: having spent more than 20% of admission time receiving insulin during hyperglycaemia, certain ICU protocols, and lower levels of severity on admission. Time-dependent protective factors were: the number of hours from admission, and the dobutamine and insulin hourly dosages. Time-dependent detrimental factors were: non‑adherence to protocol insulin instructions, the hourly nutritional energy administered, and the hourly dosage of certain drugs, including adrenaline and hydrocortisone. Conclusions Protocols for GC, practice of GC, and outcomes of GC, all differed significantly across hospitals. Some protocols seemed more effective, time‑efficient or safe than others, but there was a high incidence of non‑adherence to protocol instructions in all ICUs. This contrasts with professionals rating deviations from protocols as major, more often than not. Certain monitoring and insulin treatment methods for GC were more effective, and some were more time‑efficient than others, particularly among patients without diabetes. There is a clear need for protocols to include different recommendations for patients with diabetes, as well as to formally emphasise the importance of GC also in patients without diabetes. ICU multidisciplinary teams should be involved in the development of these protocols, and their views should be accounted for in research studies about the effectiveness of GC in the ICU. 2017-07-14 Thesis (University of Nottingham only) NonPeerReviewed application/pdf en arr https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42920/1/GlyCon%20thesis.pdf Fernández Méndez, Rocío (2017) GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Stress hyperglycaemia Stress hyperglycemia Intensive care Critical care Quality improvement Clinical protocols
spellingShingle Stress hyperglycaemia
Stress hyperglycemia
Intensive care
Critical care
Quality improvement
Clinical protocols
Fernández Méndez, Rocío
GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title_full GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title_fullStr GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title_full_unstemmed GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title_short GlyCon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
title_sort glycon: glycaemic control of stress hyperglycaemia in intensive care units
topic Stress hyperglycaemia
Stress hyperglycemia
Intensive care
Critical care
Quality improvement
Clinical protocols
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42920/