35 research outputs found
A Minority of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Routinely Downloads and Retrospectively Reviews Device Data.
BackgroundIn type 1 diabetes (T1D), periodic review of blood glucose and insulin dosing should be performed, but it is not known how often patients review these data on their own. We describe the proportion of patients with T1D who routinely downloaded and reviewed their data at home.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey of 155 adults and 185 caregivers of children with T1D at a single academic institution was performed. "Routine Downloaders" (downloaded four or more times in the past year) were also considered "Routine Reviewers" if they reviewed their data most of the time they downloaded from devices. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.ResultsOnly 31% of adults and 56% of caregivers reported ever downloading data from one or more devices, whereas 20% and 40%, respectively, were considered Routine Downloaders. Only 12% of adults and 27% of caregivers were Routine Reviewers. Mean hemoglobin A1c was lower in Routine Reviewers compared with non-Routine Reviewers (7.2±1.0% vs. 8.1±1.6% [P=0.03] in adults and 7.8±1.4% vs. 8.6±1.7% [P=0.001] in children). In adjusted analysis of adults, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer of one or more devices for every 10-year increase in age was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 2.1 [P=0.02]). For every 10 years since diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.4 [P=0.01]). For caregivers, there were no statistically significant factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.ConclusionsA minority of T1D patients routinely downloads and reviews data from their devices on their own. Further research is needed to understand obstacles, provide better education and tools for self-review, and determine if patient self-review is associated with improved glycemic control
A case study in open source innovation: developing the Tidepool Platform for interoperability in type 1 diabetes management.
OBJECTIVE:Develop a device-agnostic cloud platform to host diabetes device data and catalyze an ecosystem of software innovation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. MATERIALS AND METHODS:An interdisciplinary team decided to establish a nonprofit company, Tidepool, and build open-source software. RESULTS:Through a user-centered design process, the authors created a software platform, the Tidepool Platform, to upload and host T1D device data in an integrated, device-agnostic fashion, as well as an application ("app"), Blip, to visualize the data. Tidepool's software utilizes the principles of modular components, modern web design including REST APIs and JavaScript, cloud computing, agile development methodology, and robust privacy and security. DISCUSSION:By consolidating the currently scattered and siloed T1D device data ecosystem into one open platform, Tidepool can improve access to the data and enable new possibilities and efficiencies in T1D clinical care and research. The Tidepool Platform decouples diabetes apps from diabetes devices, allowing software developers to build innovative apps without requiring them to design a unique back-end (e.g., database and security) or unique ways of ingesting device data. It allows people with T1D to choose to use any preferred app regardless of which device(s) they use. CONCLUSION:The authors believe that the Tidepool Platform can solve two current problems in the T1D device landscape: 1) limited access to T1D device data and 2) poor interoperability of data from different devices. If proven effective, Tidepool's open source, cloud model for health data interoperability is applicable to other healthcare use cases
Time spent outside of target glucose range for young children with type 1 diabetes: a continuous glucose monitor study
Aim
To assess the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and sensor glucose metrics in young children with type 1 diabetes, using masked, continuous glucose monitoring data from children aged 2 to < 8 years.
Research design and methods
The analysis included 143 children across 14 sites in the USA, enrolled in a separate clinical trial. Eligibility criteria were: age 2 to <8 years; type 1 diabetes duration ≥3 months; no continuous glucose monitoring use for past 30 days; and HbA1c concentration 53 to <86 mmol/mol (7.0 to <10.0%). All participants wore masked continuous glucose monitors up to 14 days.
Results
On average, participants spent the majority (13 h) of the day in hyperglycaemia (>10.0 mmol/l) and a median of ~1 h/day in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/l). Participants with minority race/ethnicity and higher parent education levels spent more time in target range, 3.9–10.0 mmol/l, and less time in hyperglycaemia. More time in hypoglycaemia was associated with minority race/ethnicity and younger age at diagnosis. Continuous glucose monitoring metrics were similar in pump and injection users.
Conclusions
Given that both hypo- and hyperglycaemia negatively impact neurocognitive development, strategies to increase time in target glucose range for young children are needed
Recommended from our members
Diabetes Specialists Value Continuous Glucose Monitoring Despite Challenges in Prescribing and Data Review Process.
BACKGROUND: Diabetes clinicians are key facilitators of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provision, but data on provider behavior related to CGM use and CGM generated data are limited. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of providers caring for people with diabetes on CGM-related opinions, facilitators and barriers to prescription, and data review practices. RESULTS: Of 182 survey respondents, 73.2% worked at academic centers, 70.6% were endocrinologists, and 70.7% practiced in urban settings. Nearly 70% of providers reported CGM use in the majority of their patients with type 1 diabetes. Half of the providers reported CGM use in 10% to 50% of their patients with type 2 diabetes. All respondents believed CGM improved quality of life and could optimize diabetes control. We found no differences in reported rates of CGM use based on providers years of experience, patient volume, practice setting, or clinic type. Most providers reviewed CGM data each visit (97.7%) and actively involved patients in the data interpretation (98.8%). Only 14.1% of clinicians reported reviewing CGM data without any prompting from patients or their family members outside of visits. Most providers (80.7%) reported their CGM data review was valued by patients although only half reported having adequate time (45.1%) or an efficient process (56.1%) to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Despite uniform support for CGM by providers, ongoing challenges related to cost, insurance coverage, and difficulties with prescription were major barriers to CGM use. Increased use of CGM in appropriate populations will necessitate improvements in data access and integration, clearly defined workflows, and decreased administrative burden to obtain CGM
Recommended from our members
Pediatric Resident Insulin Management Education (PRIME): A Single-Session Workshop Emphasizing Active Learning.
IntroductionInsulin is a high-risk medication, and errors can lead to patient morbidity and mortality. The American Board of Pediatrics recommends that all board-certified pediatricians be able to develop an insulin management plan for patients with diabetes. A needs assessment of pediatric residents revealed low self-efficacy at developing a new subcutaneous insulin plan despite didactic instruction on the topic.MethodsWe created a 90-minute interactive workshop that targeted resident skills in devising subcutaneous insulin plans. Learners engaged in small-group, problem-based learning and peer teaching to promote active learning and participation. We compared self-efficacy and knowledge before and after the intervention using paired t tests and evaluated learner satisfaction.ResultsTwenty-eight pediatric interns participated, with 25 completing both the pre- and postworkshop surveys. The primary outcome was self-efficacy (an individual's confidence in the ability to perform a specific task in a given domain). There was a statistically significant improvement in self-efficacy at creating a new subcutaneous insulin plan ( p < .001) as well as knowledge ( p < .001) after course completion. Learners were highly satisfied with the course, with a mean overall conference quality rating of 4.8 (SD = 0.4) based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = outstanding).DiscussionAn interactive workshop employing active learning methods resulted in improved self-efficacy and knowledge in first-year pediatric residents. Future work is needed to determine the impact of this workshop on patient care outcomes
Recommended from our members
A Minority of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Routinely Downloads and Retrospectively Reviews Device Data.
BackgroundIn type 1 diabetes (T1D), periodic review of blood glucose and insulin dosing should be performed, but it is not known how often patients review these data on their own. We describe the proportion of patients with T1D who routinely downloaded and reviewed their data at home.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey of 155 adults and 185 caregivers of children with T1D at a single academic institution was performed. "Routine Downloaders" (downloaded four or more times in the past year) were also considered "Routine Reviewers" if they reviewed their data most of the time they downloaded from devices. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.ResultsOnly 31% of adults and 56% of caregivers reported ever downloading data from one or more devices, whereas 20% and 40%, respectively, were considered Routine Downloaders. Only 12% of adults and 27% of caregivers were Routine Reviewers. Mean hemoglobin A1c was lower in Routine Reviewers compared with non-Routine Reviewers (7.2±1.0% vs. 8.1±1.6% [P=0.03] in adults and 7.8±1.4% vs. 8.6±1.7% [P=0.001] in children). In adjusted analysis of adults, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer of one or more devices for every 10-year increase in age was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 2.1 [P=0.02]). For every 10 years since diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.4 [P=0.01]). For caregivers, there were no statistically significant factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.ConclusionsA minority of T1D patients routinely downloads and reviews data from their devices on their own. Further research is needed to understand obstacles, provide better education and tools for self-review, and determine if patient self-review is associated with improved glycemic control