Cited by 32Diabetes Management and ResearchHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsDiabetes Management and Education

Empowering hospitalized patients with diabetes: implementation of a hospital-wide CGM policy with EHR-integrated validation for dosing insulin

Open access
Lee, Ming Yeh, Seav, Susan M., Ongwela, Loice, Lee, Julie J., Aubyrn, Rachel, Cao, Fang Y., Kalinsky, Anna, Aparicio Ramos, Olivia +9 more·2024·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility, clinical accuracy, and acceptance of a hospital-wide continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) policy with electronic health record (EHR)–integrated validation for insulin dosing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A hospital policy was developed and implemented at Stanford Health Care for using personal CGMs in lieu of fingerstick blood glucose (FSBG) monitoring. It included requirements specific to each CGM, accuracy monitoring protocols, and EHR integration. User experience surveys were conducted among a subset of patients and nurses. RESULTS: From November 2022 to August 2023, 135 patients used the CGM protocol in 185 inpatient encounters. This group included 27% with type 1 diabetes and 24% with automated insulin delivery systems. The most-used CGMs were Dexcom G6 (44%) and FreeStyle Libre 2 (43%). Of 1,506 CGM validation attempts, 87.8% met the 20% or 20 mg/dL (%20/20) criterion for CGM-based insulin dosing and 99.3% fell within Clarke zones A or B. User experience surveys were completed by 27 nurses and 46 patients. Most nurses found glucose management under the protocol effective (74%), easy to use (67%), and efficient (63%); 80% of nurses preferred inpatient CGM to FSBG. Most patients liked the CGM protocol (63%), reported positive CGM interactions with nursing staff (63%), and felt no significant interruptions to their diabetes management (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a hospital-wide inpatient CGM policy supporting multiple CGM types with real-time accuracy monitoring and integration into the EHR is feasible. Initial feedback from nurses and patients was favorable, and further investigation toward broader use and sustainability is needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc24-0626

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A recent retrospective study demonstrated the feasibility of implementation of a hospital-wide personal CGM policy that included EHR integration and CGM validation for insulin dosing; the policy resulted in favorable hospitalized individual and nurse satisfaction.

    “However, a recent retrospective study demonstrated the feasibility of implementation of a hospital-wide personal CGM policy that included EHR integration and CGM validation for insulin dosing; the policy resulted in favorable hospitalized individual and nurse satisfaction (43).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, M. Y., Seav, S. M., Ongwela, L., Lee, J. J., Aubyrn, R., Cao, F. Y., Kalinsky, A., Aparicio Ramos, O., Gu, Y., Kingston, K., Ivanovic, M., Buckingham, B. A., Desai, D., Lal, R. A., Tan, M., Basina, M., & Hughes, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Stanford Health Care (US)
  • 4Department of Inpatient Systems and Services, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, CA
Corresponding author
Hughes, Michael S.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2024-08-14
Volume
47
Issue
10
Pages
1838-1845
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4401582435
Cited by
32
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 3
FWCI
10.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIDDK (1K23DK122017, 1K23DK138267, 5K12DK122550, P30DK116074)
  • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  • Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  • National Institutes of Health (T32DK007217)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, hospitalized patients, diabetes management, insulin dose, electronic health record integration, hospital policy implementation, type 1 diabetes, artificial pancreas, Dexcom G6, FreeStyle Libre 2
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Electronic Health Records

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