Data from our feasibility study show a significant reduction of hypoglycemia by implementing a computerized system for workflow and decision support for diabetes management, compared to a paper-based process. The system was well accepted by HCPs, which is shown in the user acceptance analysis and that users adhered to the insulin dose suggestions made by the system.

Aims To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non‐critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and Methods In this open, non‐controlled single‐arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal‐bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L. Results A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m 2 ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9‐7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab‐suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations. Conclusions Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

Introduction Drug errors pose a major health hazard to a number of patient populations. However, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus seem especially vulnerable to this risk as diabetes mellitus is usually concomitant with various comorbidities and polypharmacy, which present significant risk factors for the occurrence of drug errors. Despite this fact, there is little data on drug errors from patients’ perspective. The present survey aimed to examine the viewpoints of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus regarding their experiences with medication errors, the overall treatment satisfaction, and their perceptions on how a medication error was handled in daily hospital routine. Materials and methods Inpatients at the Department of Endocrinology and Diabetology of the University Hospital of Graz were included in the survey. Out of 100 patients, one-half had insulin therapy before hospitalization while the other half had no insulin therapy prior to admission. After giving informed consent, patients filled out a questionnaire with 22 items. Results Independent of their preexisting therapy, 25% of patients already suffered at least one drug error, whereby prescribing a wrong dose seemed to be the most common type of error. Furthermore, 26% of patients in the non-insulin versus 50% in the insulin group (p = 0.084) were convinced that drug errors were addressed honestly by the medical staff, while 54% in the non-insulin versus 80% in the insulin-group (p = 0.061) assumed that adequate measures were taken to prevent drug errors. Finally, 9 out of 10 patients seemed satisfied with their treatment regardless of their diabetes therapy. Discussion/conclusion The results of the survey clearly showed that patients experienced at least one medication error during hospitalization. However, these errors only rarely led to patient harm. The survey also revealed the value of an honest and respectful doctor-patient relationship regarding patient perception of medication errors and general complaints. Increasing patient awareness on the existing in-hospital error management systems could eliminate treatment-related concerns and create a climate of trust that is essential for effective treatment.

The aim was to investigate the applicability of a clinical decision support system in a real-world inpatient setting for patients with type 2 diabetes on general hospital wards. A total of 150 patients with type 2 diabetes requiring subcutaneous insulin therapy were treated with basal-bolus insulin therapy guided by a decision support system (GlucoTab) providing automated workflow tasks and suggestions for insulin dosing to health care professionals. By using the system, a mean daily blood glucose (BG) of 159 ± 32 mg/dL was achieved. 68.8% of measurements were in the target range (70 to <180 mg/dL). The percentage of BG values <40, <70, and ≥300 mg/dL was 0.02%, 2.2%, and 2.3%, respectively. Health care professionals’ adherence to suggested insulin doses and workflow tasks was high (>93% and 91%, respectively). The decision support system facilitates safe and efficacious inpatient diabetes care by standardizing treatment workflow and providing decision support for basal-bolus insulin dosing.

Objectives: Insulin charts represent a key component in the inpatient glycemic management process. The aim was to evaluate the quality of structure, documentation, and treatment of diabetic inpatient care to design a new standardized insulin chart for a large university hospital setting.Methods: Historically grown blank insulin charts in use at 39 general wards were collected and evaluated for quality structure features. Documentation and treatment quality were evaluated in a consecutive snapshot audit of filled-in charts. The primary end point was the percentage of charts with any medication error.Results: Overall, 20 different blank insulin charts with variable designs and significant structural deficits were identified. A medication error occurred in 55% of the 102 audited filled-in insulin charts, consisting of prescription and management errors in 48% and 16%, respectively. Charts of insulin-treated patients had more medication errors relative to patients treated with oral medication (P < 0.01). Chart design did support neither clinical authorization of individual insulin prescription (10%), nor insulin administration confirmed by nurses' signature (25%), nor treatment of hypoglycemia (0%), which resulted in a reduced documentation and treatment quality in clinical practice 7%, 30%, 25%, respectively.Conclusions: A multitude of charts with variable design characteristics and structural deficits were in use across the inpatient wards. More than half of the inpatients had a chart displaying a medication error. Lack of structure quality features of the charts had an impact on documentation and treatment quality. Based on identified deficits and international standards, a new insulin chart was developed to overcome these quality hurdles.