Praktyczne zalecenia w pielęgniarskiej i położniczej opiece diabetologicznej – 2023. Stanowisko Polskiej Federacji Edukacji w Diabetologii
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/pielxxiw-2022-0035Słowa kluczowe:
zalecenia, procedury, wytyczne, pielęgniarka, położna, cukrzycaAbstrakt
PRAKTYCZNE ZALECENIA W PIELĘGNIARSKIEJ I POŁOŻNICZEJ OPIECE DIABETOLOGICZNEJ – 2023. STANOWISKO POLSKIEJ FEDERACJI EDUKACJI W DIABETOLOGII
Wprowadzenie. Historia zaleceń Polskiej Federacji Edukacji w Diabetologii (PFED) sięga roku 2006, kiedy to po raz pierwszy opracowano wytyczne dla pielęgniarek/położnych pracujących z chorymi na cukrzycę. Rozszerzenie kompetencji pielęgniarek i położnych wymaga jednak bardziej zdecydowanych, niż dotychczas działań zmierzających do przejścia od praktyki opartej wyłącznie na doświadczeniu do praktyki opartej na dowodach.
Cel pracy. Celem pracy było przygotowanie zestawu procedur opisujących sposób postępowania pielęgniarskiego w opiece diabetologicznej z uwzględnieniem aktualnie dostępnych dowodów naukowych oraz klinicznego doświadczenia specjalistów zaangażowanych w opiekę nad osobą z cukrzycą.
Materiał i metoda. Dokonano przeglądu piśmiennictwa w wybranych obszarach praktyki pielęgniarki diabetologicznej. Priorytetem przy tworzeniu materiału było wykorzystanie danych kolejno z: randomizowanych kontrolowanych badań klinicznych i ich metaanaliz, badań obserwacyjnych a także innych badań o niższym poziomie dowodów.
Wyniki. Analiza zgromadzonego materiału dała podstawę do opracowania 15 procedur oraz 2 wytycznych opisujących wybrane aspekty postępowania pielęgniarskiego, w opiece nad osobą z cukrzycą. W każdej z procedur wyszczególniono kluczowe dla opieki rekomendacje i usystematyzowano je zgodnie z przyjętym poziomem dowodów naukowych.
Wnioski. Praktyczne zalecenia w pielęgniarskiej i położniczej opiece diabetologicznej na rok 2023 rok są efektem ewaluacji dotychczas prezentowanych wersji i stanowią zaktualizowany, znacznie rozszerzony, kompleksowy, oparty na dowodach naukowych zestaw praktyk. Niewątpliwie atutem jest interdyscyplinarność zaleceń wyrażająca się między innymi w tym, iż ostateczna wersja została zaopiniowana przez konsultantów w wielu dziedzinach pielęgniarstwa oraz przez konsultanta w dziedzinie diabetologii i prezesa Polskiego Towarzystwa Diabetologicznego będących przedstawicielami środowiska lekarskiego. Ważnym elementem w formułowaniu aktualnych zaleceń było wykorzystanie doświadczeń autorów zdobyte podczas prac przy międzynarodowych rekomendacjach (ang. New Insulin Delivery Recommendations).
Bibliografia
INTRODUCTION
1. Gutysz-Wojnicka A, Rozalska I, Pawlak A, i wsp. Recommendations of the Polish Association of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Nurses on pain monitoring in Intensive Care Units using a Polish version of the Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS). Zalecenia Polskiego Towarzystwa Pielęgniarek Anestezjologicznych i Intensywnej Opieki w sprawie monitorowania bólu w Oddziałach Intensywnej Terapii z wykorzystaniem polskiej wersji Behawioralnej skali oceny bólu (BPS). Pielęgniarstwo XXI wieku. 2021; 2(75): 136-146. Review match
I. GLUCOSE LEVEL MEASUREMENT USING A GLUCOSE METER
1. Noureldein M, Gowda H. Question 2: Is it safe to use the centre of the heel for obtaining capillary blood samples in neonates? Arch Dis Child. 2018;103(4):401-404. Review match
2. Schreiber-Zamora J, Zielińska A, Wilkos E, et al. Safe capillary blood sampling in newborns. Postępy Neonatologii. 2019; 25(1): 37-40. Review match
3. WHO guidelines on drawing blood best practices in phlebotomy (Eng) 2010. Accessed: 07.07.2022. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/268790/WHOguidelines-on-drawing-blood-best-practices-in-phlebotomy-Eng.pdf
4. Rodak BF. Diagnostic Hematology. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders; 1995.
5. Panek M, Kwinta P. Heel prick in neonates – the most important rules. Postępy Neonatologii 2018; 24(1):73-79. Review match
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. Review match
7. 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. Review match
8. Merter OS, Bolişik ZB. The Effects of Manual and Automatic Lancets on Neonatal Capillary Heel Blood Sampling Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;58: e8-e12. Review match
9. 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. Review match
10. Elison JM, Stegmann JM, Colner SL, et al. Rapid changes in postprandial blood glucose produce concentration differences at finger, forearm, and thigh sampling sites. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25(6): 961-964. Review match
11. 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. Review match
12. Fedele D, Corsi A, Noacco C, et al. Alternative site blood glucose testing: a multicenter study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(6):983-989. Review match
13. Lee DM, Weinert SE, Miller EE. A study of forearm versus finger stick glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2002;4(1):13-23. Review match
14. 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. Review match
15. Anitha Pavithran A, Ramamoorthy L, Bs S, et al. Comparison of Fingertip vs Palm Site Sampling on Pain Perception, and Variation in Capillary Blood Glucose Level among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus. J Caring Sci. 2020;1.9(4):182-187.
16. 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. Review match
17. Choukem SP, Efie DT, Djiogue S, et al. Effects of hydroquinone-containing creams on capillary glycemia before and after serial hand washings in Africans. PLoS One. 2018; 28,13(8):e0202271. Review match
18. Hellman R. Inaccurracies in glucose level measurements using glucose meters. Diabetologia po Dyplomie. 2012; 9(4): 40-45.
19. 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. Review match
20. 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. Review match
21. Ginsberg BH. Factors Affecting Blood Glucose Monitoring: Sources of Errors in Measurement. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2009; 3(4): 903-913. Review match
22. 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. Review match
23. Hirose T, Mita T, Fujitani Y, et al. Glucose monitoring after fruit peeling: pseudohyperglycemia when neglecting hand washing before fingertip blood sampling: wash your hands with tap water before you check blood glucose level. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: 596-597. Review match
24. Omengue AM, Sobngwi E, Dehayem M, et al. Effect of body lotions on capillary blood glucose measurement: interference of hydroquinone-containing body lotion with capillary glucose measurement. Eur Endocrinol 2018; 14: 44-46. Review match
25. Floré KM, Delanghe JR. Analytical interferences in point-of-care testing glucometers by icodextrin and its metabolites: an overview. Perit Dial Int. 2009; 29(4): 377-383. Review match
26. Frias JP, Lim CG, Ellison JM, et al. Review of adverse events associated with false glucose readings measured by GDH-PQQ–based glucose test strips in the presence of interfering sugars. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:728-772. Review match
27. Al-Dorzi HM, Al-Sum H, Alqurashi S, et al. Severe hypoglycemia in peritoneal dialysis patients due to overestimation of blood glucose by the point-of-care glucometer. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2011; 22(4): 764-768 Review match
28. Shas VS, Ohlsson A. Venepuncture versus heel lance for blood sampling in term neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(10):CD001452. Review match
29. Folk LA. Guide to capillary heelstick blood sampling in infants. Adv Neonatal Care 2007; 7(4): 171-178. Review match
30. 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. Review match
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. Review match
32. 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. Review match
33. In vitro diagnostic test systems – Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. PN-EN ISO 15197: 2015-10. Review match
34. Stacherzak-Pawlik J, Rak A, Smaciarz J, et al. Tests in the point of care – glucose meter as a POCT tool. Implement a quality system control. Diagn Lab. 2017; 53(4): 211-216. Review match
35. 2022 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Curr Top Diabetes 2022; 2 (1): 1-130.
36. Lin SP, Lin WY, Chang JT, et al. Demonstration of disinfection procedure for the development of accurate blood glucose meters in accordance with ISO 15197:2013. PLoS One. 2017;12(7): e0180617. Review match
37. Zhang X, Zhu X, Ji Y, et al. Increased risk of hepatitis B virus infection amongst individuals with diabetes mellitus. Biosci Rep. 2019; 39(3): BSR20181715. Review match
38. Han B, Liu W, Yang S, et al. Association between self-monitoring of blood glucose and hepatitis B virus infection among people with diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study in Gansu Province, China. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10): e048463. Review match
39. Hellinger WC, Grant RL, Hernke DA, et al. Glucose meters and opportunities for in-hospital transmission of infection: Quantitative assessment and management with and without patient assignment. Am J Infect Control. 2011; 39: 752-756. Review match
40. 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. Review match
41. 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. Review match
42. 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. Review match
43. Geaghan SM. Infection Transmission Associated with Point of Care Testing and the Laboratory’s Role in Risk Reduction. EJIFCC. 2014;25(2):188-194.
44. 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. Review match
45. Vanhaeren S, Duport C, Magneney M. Bacterial Contamination of glucose test strips: Not to be neglected. Am J Inf Control. 2011; 39: 611-613. Review match
46. 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. Review match
47. Ng R. Koo S, Johnston R. Multicenter evaluation of bacterial contamination of glucose test strips. Clin Chim Acta. 2012; 413: 1485-1487. Review match
48. 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. Review match
49. Ernawati U, Wihastuti TA, Utami YW. Effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic literature review. J Public Health Res. 2021;10(2):2240. Review match
50. Cheng L, Sit JWH, Choic KC, et al. Effectiveness of a patient-centred, empowerment-based intervention programme among patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2018; 79: 43-51. Review match
51. Lyu QY, Huang JW, Li YX, et al. Effects of a nurse led web-based transitional care program on the glycemic control and quality of life post hospital discharge in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021; 119:103929. Review match
52. De la Fuente Coria MC, Cruz-Cobo C, Santi-Cano MJ. Effectiveness of a primary care nurse delivered educational intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in promoting metabolic control and compliance with long-term therapeutic targets: Randomised controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020; 101:103417. Review match
53. Al-Zahrani A, Alshareef R, Farahat F, et al. Assessing the Accuracy of Different Glucometers Based on the Laboratory Reference Method. Clin Lab. 2021;66(10): 10.7754. Review match
54. Tomasik P. What is new in ISO standards, recommendations and legal regulations in Polish POCT? Diagn Lab. 2018; 54(1): 45-52. Review match
55. Choi S, Choi SJ, Jeon BR, et al. What We Should Consider in Point of Care Blood Glucose Test; Current Quality Management Status of a Single Institution. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021; 57(3):238. Review match
56. Wu IXY, Kee JCY, Threapleton DE, et al. Effectiveness of smartphone technologies on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis of 17 trials. Obes Rev. 2018;19(6):825-838. Review match
57. Jamal A, Tharkar S, Babaier WS, et al. Blood Glucose Monitoring and Sharing Amongst People With Diabetes and Their Facilitators: Cross-sectional Study of Methods and Practices. JMIR Diabetes. 2021;6(4): e29178. Review match
II. FLASH GLUCOSE MONITORING (FGM)
1. Cowart K. Expanding Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology to a Broader Population. Clin Diabetes. 2021; 39(3): 320-322. Review match
2. 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;5(1): e000320. Review match
3. Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, et al. Accuracy and precision of flash glucose monitoring sensors inserted into the abdomen and upper thigh compared with the upper arm. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(6):1503-1507. Review match
4. Abbott Diabetes Care. FreeStyle Libre sensor adhesion guide. Accessed: 07.07.2022. https://www.freestylelibre.com.au/media/pdf-downloads/14054_Adhesion_ Guide_FINAL.pdf
5. The Free-Style Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring. Healthcare Professional and Patient Training – London. 2018. Accessed: 07.07.2022. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ london/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/07/dia-FreeStyle-Libre-training-packfor-HCP-and-patients-052018.pdf
6. Heinemann L, Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2015; 9: 947-950. Review match
7. Abbott Diabetes Care. Important information about the FreeStyle Libre 2 System. Accessed: 07.07.2022 https://freestyleserver.com/Payloads/IFU/2020/q2/DOC40613_ rev-F/English/Assets/mi_important_safety_information.html
8. 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. Review match
9. 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. Review match
10. Dzida G, Fichna P, Jarosz-Chobot P, et al. Expert Opinion: Recommendation of diabetes experts on the use of FreeStyle Libre in diabetic patients in Poland. Clin Diabetol. 2019; 8: 2. Review match
11. Borot S, Benhamou PY, Atlan C, et al. Practical implementation, education and interpretation guidelines for continuous glucose monitoring: A French position statement. Diabetes Metab. 2018;44(1):61-72. Review match
12. 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. Review match
13. 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): 29232926. Review match
14. Castellana M, Parisi C, Di Molfetta S, et al. Efficacy and safety of flash glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1): e001092. Review match
15. 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. Review match
16. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al. Cutaneous adverse events related to FreeStyle Libre device – Authors’ reply. Lancet 2017; 389: 1396-1397. Review match
17. 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. 2020;14(2):328-337. Review match
18. 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. Review match
19. Aerts O, Herman A, Bruze M, et al. FreeStyle Libre: contact irritation versus contact allergy. Lancet 2017; 390: 1644. Review match
20. 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. Review match
21. Herman A, Darrigade AS, de Montjoye L, et al. Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in diabetic children. Contact Dermatitis. 2020; 28(2):105-111. Review match
22. 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. Review match
23. Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, et al. Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(S2): S254-S264. Review match
24. Abbott Diabetes Care. Evaluation of Abbott Diabetes Care FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System with Potentially Interfering Substances: Document number EDMS025771. Data on file, 2017. Review match
III. REAL TIME CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING (rtCGM)
1. Chen GY, Lancaster DG, Monro TM. Optical Microfiber Technology for Current, Temperature, Acceleration, Acoustic. Humidity and Ultraviolet Light Sensing Sensors 2018; 18: 72. Review match
2. Irace C, Cutruzzolà A, Tweden K, et al. Device profile of the eversense continuous glucose monitoring system for glycemic control in type-1 diabetes: overview of its safety and efficacy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021;18(10):909-914. Review match
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. Review match
4. 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. Review match
5. Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Brazg R, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of a novel implanted continuous glucose sensor: PRECISE II. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(3):197-206. Review match
6. Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, et al. Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(S2): S254-S264. Review match
7. Faccioli S, Del Favero S, Visentin R, et al. PedArPan Study Group. Accuracy of a CGM Sensor in Pediatric Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes. Comparison of Three Insertion Sites: Arm, Abdomen, and Gluteus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(6):1147-1154. Review match
8. Wu PT, Segovia DE, Lee CC, et al. Consistency of Continuous Ambulatory Interstitial Glucose Monitoring Sensors. Biosensors (Basel). 2018;8(2):49. Review match
9. Steineck IIK, Mahmoudi Z, Ranjan A, et al. Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(5):295-302. Review match
10. 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. Review match
11. Seget S, Rusak E, Partyka M, et al. Bacterial strains colonizing the sensor electrodes of a continuous glucose monitoring system in children with diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2021;58(2):191-195. Review match
12. Berg AK, Olsen BS, Thyssen JP, et al. High frequencies of dermatological complications in children using insulin pumps or sensors. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19: 733-740. Review match
13. Kamann S, Oppel E, Liu F, et al. Evaluation of isobornyl acrylate content in medical devices for diabetes treatment. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(10):533-537. Review match
14. McNichol L, Lund C, Rosen T, et al. Medical adhesives and patient safety: State of the science: consensus statements for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of adhesive-related skin injuries. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013; 40:365-380; E361-E362. Review match
15. Freckmann G, Buck S, Waldenmaier D, et al. Skin Reaction Report Form: Development and Design of a Standardized Report Form for Skin Reactions Due to Medical Devices for Diabetes Management. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(4):801-806. Review match
16. O’Neal DN, Adhya S, Jenkins A, et al. Feasibility of adjacent insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring via the Medtronic Combo-Set. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):381-388. Review match
17. Ward WK, Castle JR, Jacobs PG, et al. Can glucose be monitored accurately at the site of subcutaneous insulin delivery? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(3):568-574. Review match
18. 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. 2020;14(2):328-337. Review match
19. 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. Review match
20. 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. Review match
21. 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.
22. Christensen MO, Berg AK, Rytter K, et al. Skin problems due to treatment with technology are associated with increased disease burden among adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(4):215-221. Review match
23. Bryant RA. Saving the skin from tape injuries. Am J Nurs 1988; 88:189-191.
24. Medtronic Diabetes: Tape Tips and Site Management. Accessed: 07.07.2022 https:// w ww.medtronicdiabetes.com/sites/default/f iles/librar y/download-library/ workbooks/Tape%20Tips%20and%20Site%20Management.pdf
25. 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. Review match
26. Bailey TS, Chang A, Christiansen M. Clinical accuracy of a continuous glucose monitoring system with an advanced algorithm. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(2):209-214. Review match
27. Freckmann G, Pleus S, Grady M, et al. Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(3):575-583. Review match
28. Basu A, Dube S, Veettil S, et al. Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compartment in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(1):63-68. Review match
29. Scuffi C. Interstitium versus Blood Equilibrium in Glucose Concentration and its Impact on Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems. Eur Endocrinol. 2014;10(1):36-42. Review match
30. 2022 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Curr Top Diabetes 2022; 2(1): 1-130.
31. Pemberton JS, Kershaw M, Dias R, et al. DYNAMIC: Dynamic glucose management strategies delivered through a structured education program improves time in range in a socioeconomically deprived cohort of children and young people with type 1 diabetes with a history of hypoglycemia [published correction appears in Pediatr Diabetes. 2022 Jan 9]. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(2):249-260. Review match
32. Schlüter S, Freckmann G, Heinemann L, et al. Evaluation of the SPECTRUM training programme for real-time continuous glucose monitoring: A real-world multicentre prospective study in 120 adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2021;38(2): e14467. Review match
33. 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): 565-577. Review match
IV. SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INJECTION USING A PEN INJECTOR
1. Gorska-Ciebiada M, Masierek M, Ciebiada M. Improved insulin injection technique, treatment satisfaction and glycemic control: results from a large cohort education study. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2020; 19:100217. Review match
2. 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. Review match
3. Leonardi L, Vigano M, Nicolucci A. Penetration force and cannula sliding profiles of different pen needles: the PICASSO study. Med Devices. 2019;12:311-317. Review match
4. McKay M, Compion G, Lytzen LA, et al. Comparison of insulin injection needles on patients’ perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptability: a randomized, open-label, crossover study in subjects with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009; 11(3): 195-201. Review match
5. 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. Review match
6. 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. Review match
7. 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. Review match
8. Gentile S, Guarino G, Della Corte T, et al. The Durability of an Intensive, Structured Education-Based Rehabilitation Protocol for Best Insulin Injection Practice: The ISTERP-2 Study. Study Group on Injection Technique; Nefrocenter Research and Nyx Start-Up Study Group. Diabetes Ther. 2021; 12(9):2557-2569. Review match
9. 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. Review match
10. 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. Review match
11. Pettis RJ, Muchmore D, Heinemann LJ. Subcutaneous Insulin Administration: Sufficient Progress or Ongoing Need? Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 13(1): 3-7. Review match
12. La Rosa 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. Review match
13. 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. Review match
14. McKay M, Compion G, Lytzen LA, et al. Comparison of insulin injection needles on patients’ perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptability: a randomized, open-label, crossover study in subjects with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009; 11(3): 195-201. Review match
15. Regulation of the Minister of Health of February 28, 2017 on the kind and scope of preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitation services provided by a nurse or midwife independently, without a medical order (Journal of Laws 2017, item 497).
16. Misnikova IV, Dreval AV, Gubkina VA, et al. The Risks of Repeated Use of Insulin Pen Needles in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus. J. Diabetol. 2011; 2 (1): 2. Review match
17. Soltani H, Fraser R. A longitudinal study of maternal anthropometric changes in normal weight, overweight and obese women during pregnancy and postpartum. British Journal of Nutrition, 2000;84 (1):95-101. Review match
18. Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 12 April, 2002 on technical conditions which must be fulfilled by buildings and their location (Journal of Laws 2002, no. 75, item 690).
19. WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. Model guidance for the storage and transport of time- and temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical products. WHO Technical Report Series. 2011; 961(9):321- 378.
20. Vimalavathini R, Gitanjali B. Effect of temperature on the potency & pharmacological action of insulin. Indian J Med Res. 2009;130(2):166-9.
21. Heinemann L, Nguyen T, Bailey ST. Needle Technology for Insulin Administration: A Century of Innovation. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2021:1-9.
22. Fleming D, Jacober SJ, Vanderberg M, et al. The safety of injecting insulin through clothing. Diabetes Care. 1997; 20: 244-247. Review match
23. Gorman KC. Good hygiene versus alcohol swabs before insulin injections (Letter). Diabetes Care. 1993; 16: 960-961. Review match
24. 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. Review match
25. FDA. Caution when using pen needles to inject medicines: FDA safety communication. 2018. Accessed: (13. 07..2022): https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/caution-when-using-pen-needles-injectmedicines-fda-safetycommunication .Review match
26. Notice of the Minister of Health of December 20, 2021 on the list of reimbursed drugs, foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use and medical devices as of January 1, 2022.(Dz.Urz.MZ.2021.poz.82).
27. Hanas R. I-Port indwelling catheter alleviates injection pain in children with Diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013; 14 (18): 114.
V. SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION OF GLP-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS USING AN INJECTOR
1. Huthmacher JA, Meier JJ, Nauck MA. Efficacy and safety of short- and long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists on a background of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2020; 43:2303-2312. Review match
2. Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G, et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet 2009; 374:39-47. Review match
3. Dąbrowska L. Modern antidiabetic medications – a review excluding insulins, sulfonylureas, biguanides, and α-glucosidase derivatives. Review paper developed in the course of specialist training in Retail Pharmacy. Zielona Góra 2019: 1-13.
4. Frias JP, Bonora E, Nevarez Ruiz LA. et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3 mg and mg vs. dulaglutide 1.5 mg: 52-week results from AWARD-11 (abstract 357-OR). Diabetes. 2020; 69 (Suppl. 1): 357. Review match
5. le Roux CW, Astrup A, Fujioka K, et al. 3 years of liraglutide versus placebo for type 2 diabetes risk reduction and weight management in individuals with prediabetes: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2017; 389:1399-1409. Review match
6. O’Neil PM, Birkenfeld A, McGowan B, et al. Efficacy and safety of semaglutide compared with liraglutide and placebo for weight loss in patients with obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2018; 392:637-649. Review match
7. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022. Diabetes Care. 2022; 45 (Supplement 1): 1-264. Review match
8. Smolarek I, Jabłecka A. Drugs acting on the incretin system in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Farm. Współ. 2016; 9: 61-66.
9. Wadden TA, Tronieri JS, Sugimoto D, et al. Liraglutide 3.0 mg and intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) for obesity in primary care: the SCALE IBT randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2020; 28:529-536. Review match
10. Nauck MA, Meier JJ. Management of endocrine disease: are all GLP-1 agonists equal in the treatment of type 2 diabetes? Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2019; 181(6): 211-234. Review match
11. Summary of product characteristics. Bydureon. Accessed: 15.07.2022. https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/communit y-register/2011/20110617103730/ anx_103730_pl.pdf.
12. Summary of product characteristics. Byetta. Accessed: 13.07.2022. https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2016/20160722135247/ anx_135247_pl.pdf.
13. Summary of product characteristics. Trulicity. Accessed: 13.07.2022. https://leki.urpl.gov.pl/files/49_Trulicity.pdf.
14. Summary of product characteristics. Victoza. Accessed: 14.07.2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/victoza-epar-productinformation_pl.pdf.
15. Roszkiewicz M. New technologies and medications in type 1 and 2 diabetes treatment. Review paper developed in the course of specialist training in Retail Pharmacy. Gdańsk 2019: 1-25.
16. Kostrzewa-Zabłocka E. Pharmaceutical methods. In: Szewczyk A. (ed.) Diabetes nursing. PZWL, Warsaw 2019.
17. Walden E. Insulin and non-insulin injectable therapy administration policy. Diabetes Specialist nurse team. Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust.2020; 1-57.
18. Jones SC, Ryan DL, Pratt VS. et al. Injection-site nodules associated with the use of exenatide extended-release reported to the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. Diabetes Spectrum 2015; 28(4): 283-288. Review match
VI. USE OF AN INFUSION SET IN CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION (CSII) THERAPY USING A PERSONAL INSULIN PUMP
1. Heinemann L, Krinelke I. Insulin infusion set: the Achilles heel of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012; 6(4): 954-964. Review match
2. Frid AH, Kreugel G, Grassi G, et al. New Insulin Delivery Recommendations. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016; 91(9): 1231-1255. Review match
3. Conwell LS, Pope E, Artiles AM, et al. Dermatological complications of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents. J Pediatr. 2008;152 (5):622-662. Review match
4. 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. Review match
5. 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. Review match
6. 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. Review match
7. 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. Review match
8. 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. Review match
9. 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. Review match
10. American Diabetes Associtation. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care 2022;45(Suppl. 1):S97-S112. Review match
11. 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. Review match
12. Zhang JY, Shang T, Chattaraj S, et al. Advances in Insulin Pump Infusion Sets Symposium Report, J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021; 15(3): 705-709. Review match
VII. MANAGEMENT OF HYPOGLYCEMIA IN A DIABETIC PATIENT
1. 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 (1): 155-157. Review match
2. International Hypoglycemia Study Group. Minimizing Hypoglycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(8): 1583-1591. Review match
3. Pratiwi Ch, Mokoagow MI, Kshanti IA, et al. The risk factors of inpatient hypoglycemia: A systematic review. Heliyon, 2020; 6 (5): 1-6. Review match
4. De Buck E, Borra V, Carlson JN, et al. First aid glucose administration routes for symptomatic hypoglycaemia. Emergencias. 2021; 33 (2):135-136. Review match
5. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 Abridged for Primary Care Providers Diabetes Care. 2022; 40 (1):10-38. Review match
6. Polish Diabetes Association. 2022 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Curr Top Diabetes 2022;2(1):1-130.
7. Leaflets and intructions for the use of products: https://www.novonordisk.pl/ disease-areas/ulotki-i-instrukcje-uycia-produktow.html Accessed: 17.07.2022.
8. Leaflets and instructions for the use of products: https://www.lilly.pl/nasze-produkty/wspolczesne-leki-i-wyroby-medyczne Accessed: 17.07.2022.
9. 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 (5): 1384-1395. Review match
10. 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. Review match
11. 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. Review match
12. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, et al. A randomized controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, Diabet Med. 2018;35(4): 483-490. Review match
13. Pratley RE, Kanapka LG, Rickels MR, et al. Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA. 2020; 16; 323(23): 2397-2406. Review match
14. Hermanns N, Heinemann L, Freckmann G, et al. Impact of CGM on the management of hypoglycemia problems: overview and secondary analysis of the HypoDE study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 636-644. Review match
15. Chantal M. Minimising hypoglycaemia in the real world: the challenge of insulin. Diabetologia 2021; 64 (5):978-984. Review match
16. Hermanns N, Kulzer B, Krichbaum M, et al. Long-term effect of an education program (HyPOS) on the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33 (3):e36. Review match
17. 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. Review match
18. 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. Review match
19. Deeb LC, Dulude H, Guzman CB, et al. A phase 3 multicenter, open-label, prospective study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon in the treatment of moderate and severe hypoglycemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the home or school setting. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19 (5):1007-1013. Review match
VIII. REDUCING PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATION RISK
1. Copanitsanou P, Dafogianni C, Iraklianou S. Perioperative management of adult patients with diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Caring Sciences 2016;9(3): 1167-1176.
2. Galway U, Chahar P, Schmidt MT, et al. Perioperative challenges in management of diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. World J Diabetes. 2021;12(8):1255-1266. Review match
3. 2022 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Curr Top Diabetes 2022; 2(1): 1-130.
4. Kang ZQ, Huo JL, Zhai XJ. Effects of perioperative tight glycemic control on postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis. Endocr Connect. 2018;7(12): R316-R327. Review match
5. 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. Review match
6. Hweidi IM, Zytoo AM, Hayajneh AA. Tight glycaemic control and surgical site infections post cardiac surgery: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2021;30(Sup12): S22-S28. Review match
7. 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. Review match
8. 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. Review match
9. Rutan L, Sommers K. Hyperglycemia as a risk factor in the perioperative patient. AORN J. 2012;95(3):352-61. Review match
10. Talyancich O. Type 1 diabetes mellitus in the perioperative environment. The Dissector 2021; 49(2):33-37.
11. Ayas NT, Jeklin AT, Tholin H, et al. Consecutive nursing shifts and the risk of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients who are receiving intravenous insulin: a multicenter study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(6):949-953. Review match
12. Clinical Support Guide. Intravenous Insulin Infusion (MR-INF-A) (MR-INF-B). Accessed: 07.07.2022. https://www.chsadiabetes.org.au/clinicalpractice/Intravenous%20Insulin%20 Infusion_Clinical%20Support%20Guide_2020.pdf
IX. DIABETIC PATIENT FOOT EXAMINATION
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. Review match
2. American Diabetes Association. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care .2019; 42 (S1): 124138. Review match
3. Bus SA, Lavery LA, Monteiro Soares M, et al. Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(S1):e3269,10-18. Review match
4. DiGiovanni Ch W, Greisberg J. The foot and the talocrural joint. Wrocław Wyd. Elsevier Urban &Partner, 2010: 18-31.
5. Klamczyńska M, Ciupińska M. Podology. Warszawa,Wyd.PZWL,2020: 258-279.
6. Levine D, Richard J, Whittle WM. Gait analysis. Wrocław, Wyd. Elsevier Urban &Partner,2014: ,87-90,115-116,181.
7. NICE guideline. 2015 (2019 update). Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management. Accessed: 10.03.2022. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19,8-15.
8. Rakowska B, Jawień A, Sopata M, et al. The organization of health care of patients with diabetic foot syndrome. Guidelines of Polish Wound Management Association. Wound treatment. 2015; 12(3): 83-112.
9. Schaper NC, van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, et al. IWGDF Editorial Board. Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36 (S1):e3266: 2-9. Review match
10. Young M, Townson M, Hicks G. A photographic scale to aid appropriate foot skin care for people with diabetes. Diabetic Foot Canada 2015;3: 29-32.
11. 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. Review match
X. CARE 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. Review match
2. Fan L, Sidani S, Cooper-Brathwaite A, et al. Improving foot self-care knowledge, self-efficacy, 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. Review match
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. Review match
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. Review match
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. Review match
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. Review match
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. Review match
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. Review match
11. 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. Review match
XI. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SKIN AT SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INJECTION SITES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PREVENTION OF LIPOHYPERTROPHY
1. Barola A, Tiwari P, Bhansali A, et al. Insulin-Related Lipohypertrophy: Lipogenic Action or Tissue Trauma? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018; 9: 638. Review match
2. Gentile S, Guarino G, Della Corte T,. AMD-OSDI Study Group. Bruising: A Neglected, Though Patient-Relevant Complication of Insulin Injections Coming to Light from a Real-Life Nationwide Survey. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(4):1143-1157. Review match
3. Hashem R, Mulnier H, Ghazaleh H A, et al. Characteristics and morphology of lipohypertrophic lesions in adults with type 1 diabetes with ultrasound screening: an exploratory observational study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(2):1-9. Review match
4. Chowdhury TA, Escudier V. Poor glycaemic control caused by insulin induced lipohypertrophy. Brit Med J. 2003; 327: 383-384. Review match
5. 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. Review match
6. 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.
7. Gentile S, Guarino G, Della Corte T, et al. AMD-OSDI Study Group on Injection Technique, Nefrocenter Research and Nyx Start-Up. Role of Structured Education in Reducing Lypodistrophy and its Metabolic Complications in Insulin-Treated People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Multicenter Case-Control Study. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(5):1379-1398. Review match
8. Chen L Barnard-Kelly KD, Mahoney E, Baccari L, et al. Injection technique: development of a novel questionnaire and user guide. Diabetes Spectrum. 2021;34(2):156-165. Review match
9. Campinos C, Le Floch JP, Petit C, et al. An effective intervention for diabetic lipohypertrophy: results of a randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter study in France. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19:623-632. Review match
10. Gentile S, Strollo F, Guarino G, et al. Factors hindering correct identification of unapparent lipohypertrophy. J Diabetes Metab Disord Control. 2016;3(2):42-47. Review match
11. Gentile S, Guarino G, Guida P, et al. A suitable palpation technique allows to identify skin lipohypertrophic lesions in insulin-treated people with diabetes. Springerplus 2016;5(5):563-570. Review match
12. 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. Review match
13. Frid AH, Hirsch LJ, Menchior AR, et al. Worldwide injection technique questionnaire study: injecting complications and the role of the professional. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(9):1224-1230. Review match
14. Regulation of the Minister of Health of February 28, 2017 on the kind and scope of preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitation services provided by a nurse or midwife independently, without a medical order (Journal of Laws 2017, item 497).
15. Chen L, Xing Q, Li J, et al. Injection Technique Education in Patients with Diabetes Injecting Insulin into Areas of Lipohypertrophy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12 (3):813-826. Review match
16. Shen M, Shi Y, Zheng S, et al. Systematic Survey of Physicians’ Insights Into Lipohypertrophy. Front Public Health. 2021; 23(9):738179. Review match
17. Young RJ, Hannan WJ, Frier BM, et al. Diabetic lipohypertrophy delays insulin absorption. Diabetes Care. 1984; 7: 479-480. Review match
18. 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. Review match
XII. ORAL GLUCOSE TOLERANCE TEST (OGTT)
1. Bogdanet D, O’Shea P, Lyons C, et al. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test – Is It Time for a Change? – A Literature Review with an Emphasis on Pregnancy. J Clin Med. 2020;9 (11): 3451:1-22. Review match
2. American Diabetes Association. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022. Diabetes Care 2022;45(Suppl. 1):S17-S38. Review match
3. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022. Abridged for Primary Care Providers. Clin Diabetes 2022;40(1):10-38. Review match
4. Polish Diabetes Association. 2022 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Curr Top Diabetes 2022;2(1):1-130.
5. Scarpellini E, Arts J, Karamanolis G, et al. International consensus on the diagnosis and management of dumping syndrom. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2020; 16 (8):448-466.
6. Jagannathan R, Neves JS, Dorcely B, et al. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test: 100 Years Later. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020; 13: 3787-3805. Review match
7. American Diabetes Association. Standardization of the oral glucose tolerance test. Report of the Committee on Statistics of the American Diabetes Association June 14, 1968. Diabetes. 1969;18 (5):299-307. Review match
8. Regulation of the Minister of Health of January 18, 2018 on the list of active ingredients contained in drugs, foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use and medical devices prescribed by nurses and midwives and the list of diagnostic tests which nurses and midwives are authorized to issue referral for (Journal of Laws 2018.299).
XIII. MEASUREMENT OF THE LEVEL OF KETONE BODIES IN CAPILLARY BLOOD USING A GLUCOSE METER
1. Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology 2022; 10 (1):1-111.
2. American Diabetes Association. Comprehensive medical evaluation and assessment of comorbidities: standards of medical care in diabetes – 2021. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(Supp 1): S40-S52. Review match
3. Brooke J, Stiell M, Ojo O. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Capillary Hydroxybutyrate Measurement Compared with Other Measurements in the Diagnosis of Diabetic Ketoacidosis: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(9):837. Review match
4. Szewczyk A, Tobiasz-Kałkun N, Stefanowicz-Bielska A, et al. Practical Guidelines for Nursing and Midwifery Diabetes Care – 2020. A position of the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology. Pielęgniarstwo XXI w. 2020;3(72): 10-207. Review match
5. 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): 1120-112. Review match
6. Optium Xido. Blood glucose monitoring system. User guide. Accessed: 03.06.2022. http://nzozrodzina.org/container/diabetolog/optium-xido-instrukcja-obslugi.pdf Review match
7. Cherubini V, Grimsmann JM, Åkesson K, et al. Temporal trends in diabetic ketoacidosis at diagnosis of paediatric type 1 diabetes between 2006 and 2016: results from 13 countries in three continents. Diabetologia 2020; 63: 1530-1541. Review match
8. Alonso GT, Coakley A, Pyle L, et al. Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes in Colorado Children, 2010–2017. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: 117-121. Review match
9. Aye T, Mazaika PK, Mauras N, et al. Impact of Early Diabetic Ketoacidosis on the Developing Brain. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: 443- 449.
10. Ives B, Sikes K, Urban A, et al. Practical aspects of real time continuous glucose monitors: the experience of the Yale Children’s Diabetes Program. Diabetes Educ. 2010; 36: 53-62. Review match
11. Jefferies CA, Nakhla M, Derraik JGB, et al. Preventing Diabetic Ketoacidosis. Pediatr Clin North Am 2015; 62: 857-871. Review match
12. Klocker AA, Phelan H, Twigg SM, et al. Blood β-hydroxybutyrate vs. urine acetoacetate testing for the prevention and management of ketoacidosis in Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2013;30(7):818-24. Review match
13. Kościelniak-Merak B, Tomasik P. Parameters useful when diagnosing metabolic acidosis – anion gap, osmol gap and bicarbonate gap. Medycyna Praktyczna. Pediatria. 2016; 3: 97-107.
14. Szypowska A, Ramotowska A, Grzechnik-Gryziak M, et al. High Frequency of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Children with Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Research. 2016;1-5: s. 298-300. Review match
15. NICE 2021. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights. Accessed: 07.07.2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-of-rights.
XIV. MEASUREMENT OF THE URINARY LEVELS OF KETONE BODIES AND GLUCOSE
1. Kościelniak-Merak B, Tomasik P. Parameters useful when diagnosing metabolic acidosis – anion gap, osmol gap and bicarbonate gap. Practical Medicine. Pediatrics. 2016; 3:97-107.
2. Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology 2022; 10 (1):1-111.
3. Lim K, Kang M, Park J. Nutrients. Association between Fasting Ketonuria and Advanced Liver Fibrosis in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Patients without Prediabetes and Diabetes Mellitus. 2021;13(10):3400. Review match
4. Zhong VW, Juhaeri J, Mayer-Davis EJ. Trends in hospital admission for diabetic ketoacidosis in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England, 1998-2013: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 2018; 41:1870-1877. Review match
5. American Diabetes Association. Comprehensive medical evaluation an assessment of comorbidities: standards of medical care in diabetes – 2021. Diabetes Care 2021; 44 (Supp1): S40-S52 Review match
6. 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): 1120-1123. Review match
7. Kim G, Lee SG, Lee BW, et al. Spontaneous ketonuria and risk of incident diabetes: a 12 year prospective study. Diabetologia 2019;62(5):779-788. Review match
8. NICE 2021. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/ terms-and-conditions#notice-of-rights). (Accessed:03.06.2022).
9. Wierusz-Wysocka B, Zozulińska-Ziółkiewicz D. Management of diabetes in emergencies and in special clinical situations. Gdańsk: Via Medica. 2010; 1-5: 41-50.
10. Weinstock RS, Xing D, Maahs DM, et al. Severe hypogly-cemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in adults with type 1 diabetes: results from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98(8):3411-3419. Review match
XV. GENERAL GUIDELINES REGARDING SKIN – PENERTATING PROCEDURES
1. The Act of 5 December 2008 on prevention and control of infections and infectious diseases in humans (Journal of Laws 2008 no. 234, item 1570, as amended).
2. 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. Review match
XVI. ORAL ANTIHYPERGLYCEMIC AGENT ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES
1. American Diabetes Association. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care 2022; 42: 90-102. Review match
2. Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of Diabetes Poland. Clinical Diabetology 2022; 10 (1):1-122.
3. Kostrzewa-Zabłocka E. Treatment with oral medication. In: Szewczyk A. (ed.) Diabetes Nursing. 2nd ed., PZWL, Warsaw 2019; 65-79.
4. Pawlaczyk K, Czekalski S, Zozulińska-Ziółkiewicz D. Modern diabetes treatment – non-insulin medication. Medical Education 2020.
5. Evans M, Engberg S, Faurby M, et al. Adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medications and associations with clinical and economic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic literature review. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(3):377-390. Review match
6. Davidson MA, Mattison DR, Azoulay L, et al. Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future. Crit Rev Toxicol 2018; 48:52-108. Review match
7. Buse JB, Wexler DJ, Tsapas A, et al. 2019 Update to: Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2020;43(2):487-493. Review match
8. Cheen MHH, Tan YZ, Oh LF, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with primary medication non-adherence in chronic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2019;73(6): e13350. Review match
9. Clodi M, Abrahamian H, Brath H, et al. Antihyperglycemic treatment guidelines for diabetes mellitus type 2. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2019; 131:27-37.
10. Engler C, Leo M, Pfeifer B, et al. Long-term trends in the prescription of antidiabetic drugs: real-world evidence from the Diabetes Registry Tyrol 2012-2018 BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care 2020;8: e001279. Review match
XVII. GUIDELINES FOR USING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN NURSING DIABETES CARE
1. College of Nurses of Ontario. Telepractice Guideline. 2020. Accessed: 15.07.2022. https://www.cno.org/globalassets/docs/prac/41041_telephone.pdf.
2. Crawley R, Kuchta P. Telehealth Nursing Practice Special Interest Group A Telehealth Manager’s Toolkit. American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing. 2012: 1-70.
3. Series ICN Regulation. ”ICN Framework of Competencies for the Nurse specialist.” 2009. Accessed: 15. 07. 2022 https://siga-fsia.ch/files/user_upload/08_ICN_Framework _for_the_nurse_specialist.pdf.
4. Kilańska D, Grabowska H, Gaworska-Krzemińska A. E-zdrowie. Introduction to the use of ICT in nursing. PZWL, Warsaw 2017.
5. NSCN. Nova Scotia College of Nursing. Practice Guidelines for Nurse Telenursing. 2021. Accessed: 15.07.2022 https://cdn1.nscn.ca/sites/default/files/documents/ resources/Telenursing.pdf
6. Poreddi V, Kathyayani BV, Hatti NM, et al. NIMHANS-Telenursing Practice Guidelines. Bengaluru 2020.
7. Regulation of the Minister of Health of 23 September 2019 amending the Regulation on guaranteed specialist outpatient care services. Journal of Laws 2019, item 1864.
8. Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Tomczak M. Innovative telemedicine applications and e-health services in the care of older patients. Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie 2013; 11 (4): 302-317.
9. Report “How to use the potential of telemedicine in diabetology” by the Telemedicine Working Group Foundation in cooperation with experts from Diabetes Poland and representatives of the diabetes nursing community. Warsaw 2021.
10. Wilson LS, Maeder AJ. Recent directions in telemedicine: review of trends in research and practice. Healthc Inform Res. 2015; 21(4), 213-222. Review match
11. Souza-Junior VD, Mendes IAC, Mazzo A, et al. Application of telenursing in nursing practice: an integrative literature review. Appl Nurs Res. 2016; 29:254-260. Review match
12. Bingham JM, Black M, Anderson EJ, et al. Impact of Telehealth Interventions on Medication Adherence for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, Hypertension, and/or Dyslipidemia: A Systematic Review. Ann Pharmacother. 2021; 55(5):637-649. Review match
13. Aminuddin HB, Jiao N, Jiang Y., et al. Effectiveness of smartphone-based self-management interventions on self-efficacy, self-care activities, health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2021; 116:103286. Review match
14. Roussel J. Competencies for the Clinical Nurse Specialist and Nurse Practitioner in Canada [in:] Staples E, Pilon R, Hannon RA, ed. Canadian Perspectives on Advanced Practice Nursing, Canadian Scholars, Toronto, Ontario; 2020, p. 74-85.
15. Yang S, Jiang Q, Li H. The role of telenursing in the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Public Health Nursing 2019; 36(4), 575-586.
16. Mamaghani HA, Tabrizi FJ, Seyedrasooli A, et al. Effect of Empowerment Program with and without Telenursing on Self-efficacy and Glycosylated Hemoglobin Index of Patients with Type-2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2020;10 (1):22-28. Review match
17. Kotsani K, Antonopoulou V, Kountouri A, et al. The role of telenursing in the management of Diabetes Type 1: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2018; 80: 29-35. Review match
18. Biermann E, Dietrich W, Rihl J, et al. Are there time and cost savings by using telemanagement for patients on intensified insulin therapy? A randomised, controlled trial. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2002; 69 (2): 137-46. Review match
19. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022. Diabetes Care. 2022; 45 (Supplement 1): 1-264. Review match
20. Kilańska D. The nurse during the time of coronavirus. Teleappointments. PZWL, Warsaw 2020.
21. Decision of the National Health Fund President (no. 182/2019/DSOZ) on specifying the conditions for concluding and implementing contracts for the provision of health services of the specialist outpatient care type.
22. Kusnanto, Widyanata K, Suprajitno, Arifin H. DM-calendar app as a diabetes self-management education on adult type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019;18 (2):557-563. Review match
23. Kim Y, Park JE, Lee BW, et al. Comparative effectiveness of telemonitoring versus usual care for type 2 diabetes: A
Opublikowane
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2022 Autorzy
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
