Cited by 33Hospital Admissions and OutcomesDiabetes Management and EducationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Diabetes discharge planning and transitions of care: a focused review

Black, Robin L., Duval, Courtney·2019·Current Diabetes Reviews

Abstract

Background: Diabetes is a growing problem in the United States. Increasing hospital admissions for diabetes patients demonstrate the need for evidence-based care of diabetes patients by inpatient providers, as well as the importance of continuity of care when transitioning patients from inpatient to outpatient providers. Methods: A focused literature review of discharge planning and transitions of care in diabetes, conducted in PubMed is presented. Studies were selected for inclusion based on content focusing on transitions of care in diabetes, risk factors for readmission, the impact of inpatient diabetes education on patient outcomes, and optimal medication management of diabetes during care transitions. American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines for care of patients during the discharge process are presented, as well as considerations for designing treatment regimens for a hospitalized patient transitioning to various care settings. Results: Multiple factors may make transitions of care difficult, including poor communication, poor patient education, inappropriate follow-up, and clinically complex patients. ADA recommendations provide guidance, but an individualized approach for medication management is needed. Use of scoring systems may help identify patients at higher risk for readmission. Good communication with patients and outpatient providers is needed to prevent patient harm. A team-based approach is needed, utilizing the skills of inpatient and outpatient providers, diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists. Conclusion: Structured discharge planning per guideline recommendations can help improve transitions in care for patients with diabetes. A team based, patient-centered approach can help improve patient outcomes by reducing medication errors, delay of care, and hospital readmissions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2174/1573399814666180711120830

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 21 · Cited by 33

Authors
Black, R. L., & Duval, C.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Corresponding author
Black, Robin L.
Venue
Current Diabetes Reviews
Published
2019-01-18
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
111-117
ISSN
1573-3998 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2868507488
Cited by
33
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Diabetes Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, discharge planning, care transitions, hospital readmission, medication management, continuity of care, patient-centered care, team-based care, medication errors, risk scoring, American Diabetes Association guidelines
MeSH terms
Aftercare, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Patient Discharge, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Transfer, Societies, Medical, United States, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Medication Reconciliation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review