Background: The Ohio Cardiovascular and Diabetes Health Collaborative (Cardi-OH) unites the 7 medical schools in Ohio to improve cardiovascular (CV) and diabetes health outcomes and eliminate disparities in Ohio’s Medicaid population. The purpose of the Cardi-OH needs assessment was to identify high priority clinical topics for the dissemination of evidenced-based best practices to providers across the state. Methods: The cross-sectional survey was distributed via REDCap (research electronic data capture) to Cardi-OH members and its external contacts (i.e., people who have engaged with Cardi-OH but are not members) in 2022. Question topics were identified by Cardi-OH members based on perceived gaps in existing content. Results: A total of 88% (n=103) of 117 Cardi-OH members and 8% (n=98) of 1,204 external contacts participated. Of those, 51% (n=53) of Cardi-OH members and 47% (n=46) of external contacts provided direct clinical care. The top items for Cardi-OH members (clinical and non-clinical combined) were: 1) lifestyle prescriptions (n=50, 49%), 2) atypical diabetes (n=38, 37%), 3) COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (n=38, 37%), and 3) mental health and CVD (n=38, 37%). For external contacts, the top topics were: 1) lifestyle prescriptions (n=53, 54.1%), 2) mental health and CVD (n=39, 39.8%), 3) alcohol and CVD (n=27, 27.6%), and 3) CV complications (n=27, 27.6%). Regarding social determinants of health (SDOH), Cardi-OH members prioritized: 1) weight bias and stigma (n=44, 43%), 2) family-focused interventions (n=40, 39%), and 3) adverse childhood experiences (ACEs, n=37, 36%). External contacts selected: 1) family-focused interventions (n=51, 52%), 2) implicit bias (n=43, 43.9%), and 3) ACEs (n=39, 39.8%). Conclusions: Shared prioritized topics included lifestyle, SDOH, and behavioral health; these may be useful to other professional organizations as they consider dissemination priorities. Disclosure E.A.Beverly: None. A.Kinsella: None. L.J.Lammert: None. A.Nevar: None. G.Irwin: None. C.Rollins: None. M.W.Konstan: None. S.D.Bolen: None. S.Koopman gonzalez: Research Support; Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. K.M.Dungan: Board Member; Elsevier, Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc., Other Relationship; UpToDate, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Abbott, ViaCyte, Inc., Sanofi, Speaker's Bureau; Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning, Cardiometabolic Health Congress, Medscape, Integritas. J.T.Wright: Advisory Panel; Medtronic. K.R.Baughman: None. R.Wexler: None. L.D.Dworkin: None. G.D.Solomon: None. J.F.Lamb: None. Funding Ohio Department of Medicaid’s Medicaid Technical Assistance and Policy Program

There is limited experience with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in intensive care units (ICUs). We assessed the effectiveness, safety, and accuracy of real-time CGM use in COVID-19 ICUs. We pooled data from three academic centers using hybrid protocols combining point of care (POC) blood glucose (BG) with non-adjunctive CGM. At hospitals A and B, CGM was used non-adjunctively with POC at least every 6 hours. At hospital C, POC BG was performed every two hours. We also examined CGM performance during lowest pAO2, oxygen saturation, pH, and mean arterial pressure. Of 169 patients, mean age was 60.9±12.2 years, and 82%, 93%, and 62% received corticosteroids, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors respectively. Median duration of IV insulin was 118, 156, and 50 hours at hospitals A, B, and C respectively. Mean POC BG frequency was 10.2±6.1, 7.0±5.2, and 16±6.5 times/day on day 1 of IV insulin and 6.7±3.1, 6.0±3.5, and 12.2±5.8 times/day thereafter. The median percent CGM time in range (TIR, 70-180mg/dl) was 72%, 70% and 46% during IV insulin. Median time <70mg/dl was <0.1% for all hospitals. The absolute relative difference between CGM and POC did not correlate with hemodynamic instability, Figure. This data indicates hybrid monitoring can reduce POC frequency while safely maintaining glucose. Sensor-meter agreement was not associated with abnormal physiologic parameters and requires further study. Disclosure E.R.Faulds: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Other Relationship; A1Control, LLC, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Medscape. M.Garcia: None. S.Chandra: None. F.J.Pasquel: Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Medscape, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Ideal Medical Technologies. K.M.Dungan: Board Member; Elsevier, Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc., Other Relationship; UpToDate, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Abbott, ViaCyte, Inc., Sanofi, Speaker's Bureau; Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning, Cardiometabolic Health Congress, Medscape, Integritas. Y.Badakhshi: None. A.Boutsicaris: None. M.C.Exline: Other Relationship; Abbott Nutrition. J.Hester: None. L.G.Jones: None. M.Mcnett: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., National Institutes of Health. J.D.Miller: Advisory Panel; MannKind Corporation, Employee; Medtronic, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. R.Shah: None.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic resulted in the need for remote glucose monitoring in intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring insulin infusions. While rarely reported, perceptions from nursing staff are critical for successful implementation and expanded use. A hybrid continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittent point of care (POC) glucose monitoring was developed at the study institution. After 1.5 years of protocol use, an anonymous survey was distributed electronically to ICU nurses to obtain their perspectives on CGM utilization. The survey employed a 1-5 Likert scale regarding CGM sensor insertion, accuracy, acceptability, and usability as well as perceptions on reduced room entry and reduced workload. Of the 51 surveys completed, 50 (98%) nurses reported they cared for an ICU patient enrolled in the CGM protocol and 31 (62%) started or replaced a CGM sensor. A representative sample of questions and responses is shown in table 1. ICU nurses overwhelmingly reported CGM was accurate, reduced their workload, provided safer patient care, and was preferred over POC glucose testing alone. These results confirm nursing acceptance and preference for CGM use within a hybrid glucose monitoring protocol in the ICU setting. Disclosure J. Pattison: None. K. M. Dungan: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Elsevier, Nova Biomedical, Novo Nordisk, Tolerion, Inc., Other Relationship; UpToDate, Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, ViaCyte, Inc., Speaker’s Bureau; Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning, Cardiometabolic Health Congress, Medscape. E. Buschur: Advisory Panel; Beta Bionics, Inc., Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. M. C. Exline: Other Relationship; Abbott. L. G. Jones: None. C. May: None. M. Mcnett: None. K. Smetana: None. E. R. Faulds: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Speaker’s Bureau; Medscape.