No abstract

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak in Bangkok led to a shortage of hospital capacity, and a home isolation system was set up. We described the process of diabetes self‐management education and support (DSMES) and glycemic management via telemedicine, along with outcomes in home‐isolated patients with COVID‐19 infection. Methods A retrospective chart review of glucose values, insulin and corticosteroids use, and outcomes was performed. Results A volunteer group of 21 endocrinologists and 21 diabetes educators/nurses formed the consultation team. Patients with diabetes or at high‐risk of diabetes and receiving corticosteroids were referred by primary volunteer physicians. Glucometers and related supplies, and insulin were donated, and delivered via same‐day delivery services. A chat group of an individual patient/their caregiver, diabetes educator, endocrinologist, and primary physician was formed (majority via LINE ® platform) to assess the patient's clinical status and need. Real‐time virtual DSMES sessions were performed and treatments were adjusted via smartphone application or telephone. There were 119 patients (1,398 service days), mean (SD) age 62.0 (13.6) years, 85.7% had a history of type 2 diabetes, and 84.0% received corticosteroids. Insulin was used in 88 patients; 69 of whom were insulin‐naïve. During the first 10 days, there were 2,454 glucose values. The mean glucose level on day 1 was 280.6 (122.3) mg/dL, and declined to 167.7 (43.4) mg/dL on day 10. Hypoglycemia occurred in 1.4% of the values. A majority of patients (79.5%) recovered at home. Conclusion Diabetes care and DSMES delivered via telemedicine to patients on home isolation during COVID‐19 pandemic was safe and effective.

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and program satisfaction of diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) for type 2 diabetes patients delivered by telehealth during COVID-19 pandemic to in-person delivery during pre-COVID-19. A retrospective case-controlled study was conducted (95 telehealth and 95 on-site). Differences in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reductions between groups were analyzed by linear mixed-effects models, and satisfaction was collected. Compared with baseline, at the three-month follow-up, the HbA1c reductions of the telehealth and on-site DSMES were 1.20 ± 0.15% and 1.21 ± 0.15%, respectively ( P < .001), whereas these were 1.28 ± 0.16% and 1.18 ± 0.15% at six-month follow-up, respectively ( P < .001). There were no significant differences in HbA1c reduction between the two groups ( P = .967 and .674 at three- and six-month follow-up). Majority of participants in both groups had high program satisfaction (telehealth 98.7% vs on-site 95.1%, P = .269). In conclusion, DSMES delivered via telehealth is as effective in lowering HbA1c as that delivered in-person, with a high satisfaction rate.