National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association

DNA bending by bHLH charge variants

We wish to understand the role of electrostatics in DNA stiffness and bending. The DNA charge collapse model suggests that mutual electrostatic repulsions between neighboring phosphates significantly contribute to DNA stiffness. According to this model, placement of fixed charges near the negatively charged DNA surface should induce bending through asymmetric reduction or enhancement of these inter-phosphate repulsive forces. We have reported previously that charged variants of the elongated basic-leucine zipper (bZIP) domain of Gcn4p bend DNA in a manner consistent with this charge collapse model. To extend this result to a more globular protein, we present an investigation of the dimeric basic-helix–loop–helix (bHLH) domain of Pho4p. The 62 amino acid bHLH domain has been modified to position charged amino acid residues near one face of the DNA double helix. As observed for bZIP charge variants, DNA bending toward appended cations (away from the protein:DNA interface) is observed. However, unlike bZIP proteins, DNA is not bent away from bHLH anionic charges. This finding can be explained by the structure of the more globular bHLH domain which, in contrast to bZIP proteins, makes extensive DNA contacts along the binding face

Impact of hyperglycemia on morbidity and mortality, length of hospitalization and rates of re-hospitalization in a general hospital setting in Brazil

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is known to be related to a higher incidence of clinical and surgical complications and poorer outcomes. Adequate glycemic control and earlier diagnosis of type 2 diabetes during hospitalization are cost-effective measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This prospective cohort study was designed to determine the impact of hyperglycemia on morbidity and mortality in a general hospital setting during a 3-month period by reviewing patients' records. The primary purposes of this trial were to verify that hyperglycemia was diagnosed properly and sufficiently early and that it was managed during the hospital stay; we also aimed to evaluate the relationship between in-hospital hyperglycemia control and outcomes such as complications during the hospital stay, extent of hospitalization, frequency of re-hospitalization, death rates and number of days in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) after admission. Statistical analyses utilized the Kruskall-Wallis complemented by the "a posteriori" d.m.s. test, Spearman correlation and Chi-squared test, with a level of significance of 5% (p < 0.05).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We reviewed 779 patient records that fulfilled inclusion criteria. The patients were divided into 5 groups: group (1) diabetic with normal glycemic levels according to American Diabetes Association criteria for in-hospital patients (n = 123); group (2) diabetics with hyperglycemia (n = 76); group (3) non-diabetics with hyperglycemia (n = 225); group (4)diabetics and non-diabetics with persistent hyperglycemia during 3 consecutive days (n = 57) and group (5) those with normal glucose control (n = 298). Compared to patients in groups 1 and 5, patients in groups 2, 3 and 4 had significantly higher mortality rates (17.7% vs. 2.8%) and Intensive Care Unit admissions with complications (23.3% vs. 4.5%). Patients in group 4 had the longest hospitalizations (mean 15.5 days), and group 5 had the lowest re-hospitalization rate (mean of 1.28 hospitalizations). Only 184 (51.4%) hyperglycemic patients had received treatment. An insulin "sliding-scale" alone was the most frequent treatment used, and there was a wide variation in glucose target medical prescriptions. Intra Venous insulin infusion was used in 3.8% of patients in the ICU. Glycohemoglobin(A1C) was measured in 11 patients(2.2%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Hospital hyperglycemia was correlated with, among other parameters, morbidity/mortality, length of hospitalization and number of re-hospitalizations. Most patients did not have their glycemic levels measured at the hospital; despite the high number of hyperglycemic patients not diagnosed as diabetics, A1C was not frequently measured. Even when patients are assessed for hyperglycemia, they were not treated properly.</p