Keywords
procedures
nurse
midwife
diabetes
Abstract
PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY DIABETES CARE – 2020
A POSITION OF THE POLISH FEDERATION FOR EDUCATION IN DIABETOLOGY
Introduction. The history of recommendations by the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology dates back to 2006, when guidelines for nurses/midwifes working with diabetic patients were first drawn up. However, the development of nurses and midwifes? competences requires stronger actions that foster a transition from experience-based towards evidence-based practice.
Aim. The aim of this publication is to present a set of procedures describing nursing interventions in diabetes care, including currently available scientific evidence and clinical experience of specialists involved in the care of diabetic patients.
Material and methods. The study involved a literature review of selected areas of nursing practice in diabetes care. When compiling the material, the priority was to use data from (in order of significance): randomized controlled clinical trials and their meta-analyses, observational studies and other studies with an adequate scientific status.
Results. This joint study yielded 11 procedures describing selected aspects of nursing interventions in diabetic patients. Each of the procedures details key recommendations on diabetes care, arranged in accordance of the significance ascribed to the scientific evidence analyzed.
Conclusions. The 2020 PFED guidelines on nursing and midwifery diabetes care are the effect of the evaluation of the previous versions and comprise a considerably more extensive, comprehensive and evidence-based set of practices. The major asset of these guidelines is their interdisciplinarity, reflected in the fact that the final version of the publication was approved by consultants in numerous nursing fields, a consultant in diabetology, and the President of the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology, who all represent the medical community. The authors experience gained during work on international recommendations (New Insulin Delivery Recommendations) played an important role when formulating the present guidelines.
References
SELF-MONITORING OF BLOOD GLUCOSE (SMBG)
1. Abril Martin JC, Aguilar Rodriguez L, Albiñana Cilveti J. Flatfoot and calcaneal deformity secondary to osteomyelitis after neonatal heel puncture. J Pediatr Orthop B 1999; 8(2): 122–124.
2. Al-Rubeaan KA, Saeb AT, AlNaqeb DM, et al. The bacterial contamination rate of glucose meter test strips in the hospital setting. Saudi Med J. 2016; 37(9): 985-995.
3. American Diabetes Association. 7. Diabetes technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(1): S71–S80.
4. American Diabetes Association. Standrads of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(1): 1-204.
5. Bina DM, Anderson RL, Johnson ML, et al. Clinical Impact of Prandial State, Exercise, and Site Preparation on the Equivalence of Alternative-Site Blood Glucose Testing. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(4): 981-985.
6. Canale ST, Manugian AH. Neonatal osteomyelitis of the os calcis: a complication of repeated heel punctures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981; 156: 178–182.
7. Cheng L, Sit JWH, Choic KC, et al. Effectiveness of a patient-centred, empowermentbased intervention programme among patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2018; 79: 43-51.
8. Chrvala CA, Sherr D, Lipman RD. Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review of the effect on glycemic control. Patient Educ Couns. 2016; 99(6): 926-943.
9. Cobaugh DJ, Maynard G, Cooper L, et al. Enhancing insulin-use safety in hospitals: practical recommendations from an ASHP Foundation expert consensus panel. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013; 70: 1404–1413.
10. D’Orazio P, Burnett RW, Fogh-Andersen N, et al. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Scientific Division Working Group on Selective Electrodes and Point of Care Testing. Approved IFCC recommendation on reporting results for blood glucose (abbreviated). Clin Chem. 2005; 51: 1573–1576.
11. Erbach M, Freckmann G, Hinzmann MR, et al. Interferences and Limitations in Blood Glucose Self-Testing. An Overview of the Current Knowledge Diabetes. Sci Technol. 2016; 10(5): 1161–1168.
12. Farmer L, Winfield C, Quatrara B, et al. Does Site Matter? Comparing Accuracy and Patient Comfort of Blood Glucose Samples Taken From the Finger and Palm of the Perioperative Patient. J Perianesth Nurs. 2017; 32(6): 573-577.
13. Folk LA. Guide to capillary heelstick blood sampling in infants. Adv Neonatal Care 2007; 7(4): 171-8.
14. Ginsberg BH. Factors Affecting Blood Glucose Monitoring: Sources of Errors in Measurement. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2009; 3(4): 903-913.
15. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
16. Hellinger WC, Grant RL, Hernke DA, et al. Glucose meters and opportunities for inhospital transmission of infection: Quantitative assessment and management with and without patient assignment. Am J Infect Control. 2011; 39: 752-756.
17. Hellman R. Niedokładności w pomiarach stężenia glukozy za pomocą glukometrów. Diabetologia po Dyplomie. 2012; 9(4): 40-45.
18. Hortensius J, Slingerland RJ, Kleefstra N, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: the use of the first or the second drop of blood. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34(3): 556-560.
19. Jacoby MJ. An Analysis of Alternate Site Tests to Improve Patient Compliance with Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2010; 4(4): 911-912.
20. Klonoff DC, Perz JF. Assisted monitoring of blood glucose: special safety needs for a new paradigm in testing glucose. J Diabetes Sci Tech. 2010; 4:.1027–1031.
21. Krleza LL, Dorotic A, Grzunov A, et al. Capillary blood sampling: national recommendations on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Biochemia Medica. 2015; 25(3): 335–358.
22. Li M, Wang X, Shan Z. Deciding between using the first or second drop of blood for the self-monitoring of blood glucose. Prim Care Diabetes. 2014; 8(4): 365-369.
23. Lilien L, Harris VJ, Ramamurthy RS, et al. Neonatal osteomyelitis of the calcaneus: complication of heel puncture. Journal of Pediatrics. 1976; 88(3): 478–480.
24. Lucidarme N, Alberti C, Zaccaria I, et al. Alternate-Site Testing Is Reliable in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes, Except at the Forearm for Hypoglycemia Detection MD1. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28(3): 710-711.
25. Ng R. Multicenter evaluation of bacterial contamination of glucose test strips. Clin Chim Acta. 2012; 413: 1485-1487.
26. Palese A, Fabbro E, Casetta A, et al. First or Second Drop of Blood in Capillary Glucose Monitoring: Findings from a Quantitative Study. J Emerg Nurs. 2016; 42(5): 420-426.
27. Panek M, Kwinta P. Nakłucie pięty u noworodka – najważniejsze zasady. Postępy Neonatologii. 2018; 24(1): 73-79.
28. Pérez-Ayala M, Oliver P, Rodríguez Cantalejo F. Prevalence of bacterial contamination of glucose test strips in individual single-use packets versus multiple-use vials. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7(4): 854-862.
29. Rajendran R, Rayman G. Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Testing for Diabetes Care in Hospitalized Patients: An Evidence-Based Review. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2014; 8(6): 1081–1090.
30. Rodak BF. Diagnostic Hematology. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders; 1995.
31. Saini S, Kaur S, Das K, et al. Using the first drop of blood for monitoring blood glucose values in critically ill patients: An observational study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016; 20(11): 658-661.
32. Saththasivam P, Umadevan D, Ramli N, et al. Venipuncture versus heel prick for blood glucose monitoring in neonates. Singapore Med J. 2009; 50(10): 1004-1007.
33. Schaffzin JK, Southwick KL, Clement EJ, et al. Transmission of hepatitis B virus associated with assisted monitoring of blood glucose at an assisted living facility in New York State. American Journal of Infection Control. 2012; 40: 726-731.
34. Schreiber-Zamora J, Zielińska A, Wilkos E, i wsp. Bezpieczne pobieranie krwi włośniczkowej u noworodków. Postępy Neonatologii. 2019; 25(1): 37-40.
35. Stacherzak-Pawlik J, Rak A, Smaciarz J, i wsp. Badania w miejscu opieki nad pacjentem – glukometr jako narzędzie POCT. Wdrożenie systemu kontroli jakości. Diagn Lab. 2017; 53(4): 211-216.
36. Systemy do badań diagnostycznych in vitro – Wymagania dotyczące systemów monitorujących poziom glukozy we krwi do samokontroli u chorych na cukrzycę. PN-EN ISO 15197:2015-10.
37. Thompson ND, Perz JF. Eliminating the blood: ongoing outbreaks of hepatitis virus infection and the need for innovative glucose monitoring technologies. J DiabSci Technol 2009; 3: 283-288.
38. Thompson ND, Schaefer MK. “Never Events”: Hepatitis outbreaks and patient notifications resulting from unsafe practices during assisted monitoring of blood glucose, 2009-2010. J Diab Sci Tech. 2011; 5: 1396-1402.
39. Tomasik P. Co nowego w normach ISO, wytycznych i prawnych regulacjach dotyczących badań w miejscu opieki? Diagn Lab. 2018; 54(1): 45-52.
40. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28 Accessed: 21.03.2020.
41. Vanhaeren S, Duport C, Magneney M. Bacterial Contamination of glucose test strips: Not to be neglected. Am J Inf Control. 2011; 39: 611-613.
42. WHO guidelines on drawing blood best practices in phlebotomy (Eng) 2010. Accessed: 10.03.2020. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/268790/WHO-guidelines-on-drawing-blood-best-practices-in-phlebotomy-Eng.pdf?ua-1
FLASH GLUCOSE MONITORING (FGM)
1. Aerts O, Herman A, Bruze M, et al. FreeStyle Libre: contact irritation versus contact allergy. Lancet. 2017; 390: 1644.
2. Asarani NAM, Reynolds AN, Boucher SE, et al. Cutaneous Complications With Continuous or Flash Glucose Monitoring Use: Systematic Review of Trials and Observational Studies. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 27: 1932296819870849.
3. Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP, et al. The Performance and Usability of a Factory-Calibrated Flash Glucose Monitoring System. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2015; 17(1): 787-794.
4. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10057): 2254-2263.
5. Diabetes UK Consensus Gudeline for flash Glucose Monitoring, Diabetes UK 2017. Accessed: 10.03.2020. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/resources-s3/2017-09/1190_Flash%20glucose%20monitoring%20guideline_SB_V9%5B4%5D.pdf
6. Dzida G, Fichna P, Jarosz-Chobot P, i wsp. Expert Opinion: Recommendation of diabetes experts on the use of FreeStyle Libre in diabetic patients in Poland. Clin Diabetol. 2019; 8: 2.
7. Edge J, Acerini C, Campbell F, et al. An alternative sensor-based method for glucose monitoring in children and young people with diabetes. Arch Dis Child. 2017; 102(6): 543-549.
8. Fokkert MJ, van Dijk PR, Edens MA, et al. Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017; 17,5(1): e000320.
9. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1); 1-103.
10. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8(1): 55-73.
11. Heinemann L, Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2015; 9: 947–950.
12. Herman A, Aerts O, Baeck M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermat. 2017; 77: 367–373.
13. Herman A, Darrigade AS, de Montjoye L, et al. Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in diabetic children. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 28.
14. Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Schipfer M, et al. The impact of a structured education and treatment programme (FLASH) for people with diabetes using a flash sensor-based glucose monitoring system: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019; 150: 111-121.
15. Hyry HSI, Liippo JP, Virtanen HM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in type 1 diabetes patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81(3): 161-166.
16. Kamann S, Aerts O, Heinemann L. Further evidence of severe allergic contact dermatitis from isobornyl acrylate while using a continuous glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018; 12: 630–633.
17. Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018; 35(4): 472-482.
18. Mancini G, Berioli MG, Santi E, et al. Flash Glucose Monitoring: A Review of the Literature with a Special Focus on Type 1 Diabetes. Nutrients. 2018; 10(8): 992.
19. Ólafsdóttir AF, Attvall S, Sandgren U, et al. A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the flash glucose monitor Free Style Libre in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2017; 19: 164–172.
20. Pintusa D, Sze M. Ng. Freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring improves patient quality of life measures in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with appropriate provision of education and support by healthcare professionals. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 2019; 13(5): 2923-2926.
21. The Free-Style Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring. Healthcare Professional and Patient Training – London. 2018. Accessed: 10.03.2020. http://www.londonscn.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/dia-FreeStyle-Libretraining-pack-for-HCP-andpatients-052018.pdf
22. Tobiasz-Kałkun N, Szewczyk A. red. Standardy i procedury pielęgniarskiej praktyki klinicznej na stanowisku edukatora do spraw diabetologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL; 2018.
23. Tobiasz-Kałkun N. Konspekt Edukacji Diabetologicznej – Teoretyczne założenia i praktyczne zastosowania. [w:] Szewczyk A, red. Edukacja w pielęgniarstwie diabetologicznym – konspekty. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL; 2017.
CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING (CGM)
1. 1. Chen GY, Lancaster DG, Monro TM. Optical Microfiber Technology for Current, Temperature, Acceleration, Acoustic. Humidity and Ultraviolet Light Sensing Sensors 2018; 18: 72.
2. Deiss D, Irace C, Carlson G, et al. Real-World Safety of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor Over Multiple Cycles of Use: A Post-Market Registry Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(1): 48-52.
3. Deiss D, Szadkowska A, Gordon D, et al. Clinical Practice Recommendations on the Routine Use of Eversense, the First Long-Term Implantable Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2019; 21(5): 254-264.
4. Englert K, Ruedy K, Coffey J, et al. Skin and adhesive issues with continuous glucose monitors: a sticky situation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014; 8: 745–751.
5. Evert A, Trence D, Catton S, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring technology for personal use: an educational program that educates and supports the patient. Diabetes Educ. 2009; 35(4): 565-580.
6. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
7. Hermanides J, Wentholt IM, Hart AA, et al. No apparent local effect of insulin on microdialysis continuous glucose – monitoring measurements. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(6): 1120-1122.
8. Hyry HSI, Liippo JP, Virtanen HM. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in type 1 diabetes patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81(3): 161-166.
9. Ives B, Sikes K, Urban A, et al. Practical aspects of realtime continuous glucose monitors: the experience of the Yale Children’s Diabetes Program. Diabetes Educ. 2010; 36: 53–62.
10. Lombardo F, Passanisi S, Caminiti L, et al. High prevalence of skin reactions among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using new technologies: the alarming role of colophonium. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(1): 53–56.
11. Mazze RS, Strock E, Philip S, et al. A Novel Methodology to Evaluate Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy and Clinical Representation of Glucose Exposure and Variability. Diabetes. 2007; 56(1): A107-A107.
12. Medtronic Diabetes: Tape Tips and Site Management. Accessed: 20.03.2020. https://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/sites/default/files/library/downloadlibrary/workbooks/Tape%20Tips%20and%20Site%20 Management.pdf
13. Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, et al. Preserving Skin Integrity with Chronic Device Use in Diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2018; 20(2): S252-S264.
14. Rebrin K, Steil GM, van Antwerp WP, et al. Subcutaneous glucose predicts plasma glucose independent of insulin: implications for continuous monitoring. Am J Physiol. 1999; 277(3): E561-E571.
15. Sharma S, Huang Z, Rogers M, et al. Evaluation of a minimally invasive glucose biosensor for continuous tissue monitoring. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016; 408: 8427–8435.
16. Tobiasz-Kałkun N, Szewczyk A. red. Standardy i procedury pielęgniarskiej praktyki klinicznej na stanowisku edukatora do spraw diabetologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie, PZWL; 2018.
17. Tobiasz-Kałkun N. Konspekt Edukacji Diabetologicznej – Teoretyczne założenia i praktyczne zastosowania. [w:] Szewczyk A, red. Edukacja w pielęgniarstwie diabetologicznym – konspekty. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL; 2017.
SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INJECTION USING A PEN INJECTOR
1. Baruah MP, Sanjav KS, Septarshi BS, et al. An Audit of Insulin Usage and Insulin Injection Practices in a Large Indian Cohort. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 21(3): 443–452.
2. Fleming D, Jacober SJ, Vanderberg M, et al. The safety of injecting insulin through clothing. Diabetes Care. 1997; 20: 244-247.
3. Gorman KC. Good hygiene versus alcohol swabs before insulin injections (Letter). Diabetes Care. 1993; 16: 960-961.
4. Grassi G, Scuntero P, Trepiccioni R, et al. Optimizing insulin injection technique and its effect on blood glucose control. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2014; 1: 145–150.
5. Heise T, Nosek L, Dellweg S, et al. Impact of injection speed and volume on perceived pain during subcutaneous injections into the abdomen and thigh: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014; 16(10): 971-976.
6. Hirsch LJ, Strauss KW. The Injection Technique Factor: What You Don’t Know or Teach Can Make a Difference. Clin Diabetes. 2019; 37(3): 227-233.
7. LaRosa C, Makkar H, Grant-Kels JM. Approach to the total body skin examination in adults and children: Kids are not just little people. Clinics in Dermatology 2017; 35(6): 500–503.
8. Lim STJ, Hui YCA, Lim PK, et al. Ultrasound-guided measurement of skin and subcutaneous tissue thickness in children with diabetes and recommendations for giving insulin injections. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2018; 12: 26–35.
9. Lo Presti D, Ingegnosi C, Strauss K. Skin and subcutaneous thickness at injecting sites in children with diabetes: ultrasound findings and recommendations for giving the injection. Pediatr Diab. 2012; 13(7): 525–533.
10. McKay M, Compion G, Lytzen LA, et al. Comparison of insulin injection needles on patients’ perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptability: a randomized, openlabel, crossover study in subjects with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009; 11(3): 195-201.
11. Misnikova IV, Gubkina VA, Lakeeva TS, at al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Proper Insulin Injection Technique Training on Glycemic Control. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8(6): 1309-1318.
12. Olmo DZ, Vlacho B, Fernández J, et al. Safety of the reuse of needles for subcutaneous insulin injection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016; 60: 121-132.
13. Pettis RJ, Muchmore D, Heinemann LJ. Subcutaneous Insulin Administration: Sufficient Progress or Ongoing Need? Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 13(1): 3-7.
14. Polish Diabetes Association. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
15. Rini C, Roberts BC, Morel D, et al. Evaluating the Impact of Human Factors and Pen Needle Design on Insulin Pen Injection. Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 13(3): 533-545.
16. Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 28 lutego 2017 r. w sprawie rodzaju i zakresu świadczeń zapobiegawczych, diagnostycznych, leczniczych i rehabilitacyjnych udzielanych przez pielęgniarkę albo położną samodzielnie bez zlecenia lekarskiego (Dz.U. 2017 poz. 497).
17. Song Z, Guo X, Ji L, et al. Insulin Injection Technique in China Compared with the Rest of the World. Diabetes Ther. 2018; 9(6): 2357-2368.
18. Tobiasz-Kałkun N, Szewczyk A. red. Standardy i procedury pielęgniarskiej praktyki klinicznej na stanowisku edukatora do spraw diabetologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL; 2018.
USE OF AN INFUSION SET IN CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION (CSII) THERAPY USING A PERSONAL INSULIN PUMP
1. American Diabetes Associtation. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42 (1): 1-204.
2. Ehrmann D, Kulzer B, Schipfer M, et al. Efficacy of an Education Program for People With Diabetes and Insulin Pump Treatment (INPUT): Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(12): 2453-2462.
3. Frid AH, Kreugel G, Grassi G, et al. New Insulin Delivery Recommendations. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016; 91(9): 1231–1255.
4. Heinemann L, Krinelke I. Insulin infusion set: the Achilles heel of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012; 6(4): 954-964.
5. Kerr D, Morton J, Whately-Smith C, et al. Laboratory-based non-clinical comparison of occlusion rates using three rapid-acting insulin analogs in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion catheters using low flow rates. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008; 2(3): 450-455.
6. Overland J, Molyneaux L, Tewari S, et al. Lipohypertrophy: does it matter in daily life? A study using a continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009; 11(5): 460-463.
7. Phillip M, Battelino T, Rodriguez H, et al. Use of insulin pump therapy in the pediatric age-group: consensus statement from the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, endorsed by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007; 30(6): 1653–1662.
8. Polish Diabetes Association. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
9. Schmid V, Hohberg C, Borchert M, et al. Pilot study for assessment of optimal frequency for changing catheters in insulin pump therapy-trouble starts on day 3. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010; 4(4): 976–982.
10. Thethi TK, Rao A, Kawji H, et al. Consequences of delayed pump infusion line change in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Diabetes Complications. 2010; 24(2): 73-78.
11. van Faassen I, Razenberg PP, Simoons-Smit AM, et al. Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and inflamed infusion sites with insulin-pump therapy. Diabetes Care. 1989; 12 (2): 153-155.
ORAL GLUCOSE TOLERANCE TEST (OGTT )
1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42 (1), 1-204.
2. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(19): 1991–2002.
3. Ode KL, Moran A. New insights into cystic fibrosis-related diabetes in children. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2013; 1(1): 52–58.
4. Polish Diabetes Association. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
MANAGEMENT OF HYPOGLYCEMIA IN A DIABETIC PATIENT
1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(1): 1-204.
2. Choudhary P, Amiel SA. Hypoglycaemia: current management and controversies. Postgrad. Med. J. 2011; 87(1026): 298–306.
3. Choudhary P, Rickels MR, Senior PA, et al. Evidence-informed Clinical Practice Recommendations for Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes Complicated by Problematic Hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(6): 1016–1029.
4. Gimenez M, Tannen AJ, Reddy M, et al. Revisiting the Relationships Between Measures of Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Sets. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(2): 326-332.
5. Hopkins D, Lawrence I, Mansell P, et al. Improved Biomedical and Psychological Outcomes 1 Year After Structured Education in Flexible Insulin Therapy for People With Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(8): 1638–1642.
6. International Hypoglycemia Study Group. Glucose concentrations of less than 3 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 155–157.
7. International Hypoglycemia Study Group. Minimizing Hypoglycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(8): 1583-1591.
8. Little SA, Leelarathna L, Walkinshaw E, et al. Recovery of hypoglycemia awareness in long-standing type 1 diabetes: a multicenter 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial comparing insulin pump with multiple daily injections and continuous with conventional glucose self-monitoring (HypoCOMPaSS). Diabetes Care. 2014; 37(8): 2114-2122.
9. Polish Diabetes Association. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019: 8(1): 1-103.
10. Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B, et al. Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a work group of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36: 1384–1395.
REDUCING PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATION RISK
1. Aldam P, Levy N, Hall GM. Perioperative management of diabetic patients: new Controversies. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2014; 113: 906–909.
2. Boreland L, Scott-Hudson M, Hetherington K, et al. The effectiveness of tight glycemic control on decreasing surgical site infections and readmission rates in adult patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review. Heart & Lung. 2015; 44: 430e–440e.
3. Clinical Support Guide. Intravenous Insulin Infusion (MR-INF-A) (MR-INF-B), 2019. Accessed: 20.03.2020. https://www.chsadiabetes.org.au/clinicalpractice/Intravenous%20Insulin%20Infusion_Clinical%20Support%20Guide_Final_2019.pdf
4. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clin Diabet. 2019; 8: 1.
5. Kotagal M, Symons RG, Hirsch IB et al. Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes. Ann Surg. 2015; 261: 97-103.
6. Martin ET, Kaye KS, Knott C. et al. Diabetes and risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37: 88-99.
7. Westbrook A, Sherry D, McDermott M, et al. Examining IV Insulin Practice Guidelines in the Cardiac Surgery Patient Nurses Evaluating Quality Outcomes. J Nurs Care Qual. 2016; 31(4): 344–349.
DIABETIC PATIENT FOOT EXAMINATION AND CARE
1. Aalaa M, Tabatabaei Malazy O, Sanjari M, et al. Nurses’ role in diabetic foot prevention and care; a review. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders. 2012; 11: 24.
2. Ahmad Sharoni SK, Minhat HS, Mohd Zulkefli NA, et al. Health education programmes to improve foot self-care practices and foot problems among older people with diabetes: a systematic review. Int J Older People Nurs. 2016; 11: 214–239.
3. American Diabetes Association. 11. Microvascular complications and foot care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(1): S124–S138.
4. Arad Y, Fonseca V, Peters A, et al. Beyond the monofilament for the insensate diabetic foot: A systematic review of randomized trials to prevent the occurrence of plantar foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34: 1041–1046.
5. Bonner T, Foster M, Spears-Lanoix E. Type 2 diabetes-related foot care knowledge and foot self-care practice interventions in the United States: a systematic review of the literature. Diabet Foot Ankle. 2016; 7: 29758.
6. Boulton AJ, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al. Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: a report of the task force of the foot care interest group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(8): 1679–1685.
7. Crawford F, Inkster M, Kleijnen J, et al. Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM. 2007; 100: 65–86.
8. Dargis V, Pantelejeva O, Jonushaite A, et al. Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Lithuania: A prospective study. Diabetes Care.
9. Elraiyah T, Domecq JP, Prutsky G, et al. A systematic review and metaanalysis of débridement methods for chronic diabetic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2016; 63: 37S–45S, e2.
10. Feng Y, Schlösser FJ, Sumpio BE. The SemmesWeinstein monofilament examination is a significant predictor of the risk of foot ulceration and amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 53: 220–226, e1-5.
11. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1); 1-103.
12. NICE guideline. 2015. Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management. Accessed: 10.03.2020. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19
13. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, et. al. Global Epidemiology of Diabetic Foot Ulceration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Annals of Medicine. 2016; 49(2): 106-116.
14. Rakowska B, Jawień A, Sopata M, i wsp. Organizacja opieki nad chorymi z zespołem stopy Cukrzycowej. Wytyczne Polskiego Towarzystwa Leczenia Ran. Leczenie Ran 2015; 12(3): 83–112.
15. Schaper NC, van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, et al. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)IWGDF Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease. 2019. Accessed: 22.03.2020.
16. Somajaji R, Elliott JA, Persaud R, et al. The impact of team based interprofessional comprehensive assessments on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot ulcers: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9): e0185251.
17. Tan TW, Shih CD, Concha-Moore KC, et al. Disparities in outcomes of patients admitted with diabetic foot infections. PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0211481.
18. Valk GD, Kriegsman DM, Assendelft WJ. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. A systematic review. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002; 31: 633–658.
19. Van Netten JJ, Price PE, Laverty LA, et al. Prevention of foot ulcers in the at-risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016; 32(1): 84–98.
SKIN HYGIENE IN DIABETIC PATIENTS
1. Campos de Macedo GM, Nunes S, Barreto T. Skin disorders in diabetes mellitus: an epidemiology and physiopathology review. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2016; 8: 63.
2. Fan L, Sidani S, Cooper-Brathwaite A, et al. Improving foot self-care knowledge, selfefficacy, and behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes at low risk for foot ulceration: a pilot study. Clin Nurs Res. 2014; 23(6): 627-643.
3. Federici A, Federici G, Milani M. An urea, arginine and carnosine based cream (Ureadin Rx Db ISDIN) shows greater efficacy in the treatment of severe xerosis of the feet in Type 2 diabetic patients in comparison with glycerol-based emollient cream. A randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial. BMC Dermatol. 2012; 12: 16.
4. Martini J, Huertas C, Turlier V, et al. Efficacy of an emollient cream in the treatment of xerosis in diabetic foot: a double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017; 31(4): 743-747.
5. Nguyen TPL, Edwards H, Do TND, et al. Effectiveness of a theory-based foot care education program (3STEPFUN) in improving foot self-care behaviours and foot risk factors for ulceration in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019; 152: 29-38.
6. Papanas N, Papazoglou D, Papatheodorou K, et al. Evaluation of a new foam to increase skin hydration of the foot in type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. Int Wound J. 2011;8:297-300.
7. Pham HT, Exelbert L, Segal-Owens AC, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled double-blind study of a moisturizer for xerosis of the feet in patients with diabetes. Ostomy Wound Manag. 2002; 48: 30-36.
8. Piérard GE, Seité S, Hermanns-Lê T, et al. The skin landscape in diabetes mellitus. Focus on dermocosmetic management. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. 2013; 6: 127-135.
9. Polaskova J, Pavlackova J, Vltavska P, et al. Moisturizing effect of topical cosmetic products applied to dry skin. J Cosmet Sci. 2013; 64: 329-340.
10. Seite S, Khemis A, Rougier A, et al. Importance of treatment of skin xerosis in diabetes. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011; 25: 607-609.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SKIN AT SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INJECTION SITES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PREVENTION OF LIPOHYPERTROPHY
1. Al Ajlouni M, Abujbara M, Batieha A, et al. Prevalence of lipohypertrophy and associated risk factors in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2015; 13(2): e20776.
2. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42 (1): 1-204.
3. Ariza-Andraca CR, Altamirano-Bustamante E, Frati-Munari AC, et al. Delayed insulin absorption due to subcutaneous edema. Arch Invest Med. 1991; 22: 229-233.
4. Barola A, Tiwari P, Bhansali A, et al. Insulin-Related Lipohypertrophy: Lipogenic Action or Tissue Trauma? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018; 9: 638.
5. Blanco M, Hernandez MT, Strauss KW, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of lipohypertrophy in insulin-injecting patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 2013; 39(5): 445-453.
6. Chowdhury TA, Escudier V. Poor glycaemic control caused by insulin induced lipohypertrophy. Brit Med J. 2003; 327: 383-384.
7. Frid A, Linden B. Computed tomography of injection sites in patients with diabetes mellitus. Injection and Absorption of Insulin. Stockholm: Thesis, 1992.
8. Frid AH, Kreugel G, Grassi G, et al. New Insulin Delivery Recommendations 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016; 91(9): 1231-1255.
9. Gupta SS, Gupta KS, Gathe SS, et al. Clinical Implications of Lipohypertrophy Among People with Type 1 Diabetes in India. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018; 20(7): 483-491.
10. Hambridge K. The management of lipohypertrophy in diabetes care. Br. J. Nurs. 2007; 16: 520-524.
11. Hauner H, Stockamp B, Haastert B. Prevalence of lipohypertrophy in insulin-treated diabetic patients and predisposing factors. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes. 1996; 104: 106-110.
12. Hayek AA, Robert AA, Braham RB, et al. Frequency of lipohypertrophy and associated risk factors in young patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Diabetes Ther. 2016; 7(2): 259-267.
13. Hernar I, Haltbakk J, Brostrom A. Diff erences in depression, treatment satisfaction and injection behavior in adults with type 1 diabetes and diff erent degrees of lipohypertrophy. J Clin Nurs. 2017; 26(23-24): 4583-4596.
14. Ji L, Sun Z, Li Q, et al. Lipohypertrophy in China: Prevalence, Risk Factors, Insulin Consumption, and Clinical Impact. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017; 19(1): 61-67.
15. Johansson U, Amsberg S, Hannerz L, et al. Impaired Absorption of insulin Aspart from Lipohypertrophic Injection Sites. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28: 2025-2027.
16. LaRosa C, Makkar H, Grant-Kels JM. Approach to the total body skin examination in adults and children: Kids are not just little people. Clinics in Dermatology. 2017; 35(6): 500-503.
17. Manash P, Baruah MP, Sanjay K, et al. An Audit of Insulin Usage and Insulin Injection Practices in a Large Indian Cohort. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 21(3): 443-452.
18. Nagase T, Iwaya K, Iwaki Y, et al. Insulin-derived Amyloidosis and Poor Glycemic Control. A Case Series The American Journal of Medicine. 2014; 127: 450-454.
19. Olmo DZ, Vlacho B, Fernandez J, et al. Safety of the reuse of needles for subcutaneous insulin injection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016; 60: 121-132.
20. Overland J, Molyneaux L, Tewari S, et al. Lipohypertrophy, Does it matter in daily life? A study using a continuous glucose monitoring system. Diab, Obes Metab. 2009; 11: 460-463.
21. Polinski JM, Kim SC, Jiang D, et al. Geographic patterns in patient demographics and insulin use in 18 countries, a global perspective from the multinational observational study assessing insulin use: Understanding the challenges associated with progression of therapy (MOSAIc) BMC. Endocr Disord. 2015; 15: 46.
22. Polish Diabetes Association. Guidelines on the management of diabetic patients. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology. 2019; 8(1): 1-103.
23. Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 28 lutego 2017 r. w sprawie rodzaju i zakresu świadczeń zapobiegawczych, diagnostycznych, leczniczych i rehabilitacyjnych udzielanych przez pielęgniarkę albo położną samodzielnie bez zlecenia lekarskiego (Dz.U. 2017 poz. 497).
24. Saez-de Ibarra L, Gallego F. Factors related to lipohypertrophy in insulin-treated diabetic patients; role of educational intervention. Pract Diab Int. 1998; 15: 9-11.
25. Vardar B, Kızılcı S. Incidence of lipohypertrophy in diabetic patients and a study of infl uencing factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007; 77(2): 231-236.
26. Young RJ, Hannan WJ, Frier BM, et al. Diabetic lipohypertrophy delays insulin absorption. Diabetes Care. 1984; 7: 479-480
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright (c) 2020 Authors