A Journey to Improved Inpatient Glycemic Control by Redesigning Meal Delivery and Insulin Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to redesign a hospital meal delivery process in order to shorten the time between blood glucose monitoring and corresponding insulin administration and improve glycemic control. DESCRIPTION: This process change redesigned the workflow of the dietary and nursing departments. Modifications included nursing, rather than dietary, delivering meal trays to patients receiving insulin. Dietary marked the appropriate meal trays and phoned each unit prior to arrival on the unit. The process change was trialed on 2 acute care units prior to implementation hospital wide. Elapsed time between blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration was analyzed before and after process change as well as evaluation of glucometrics: percentage of patients with blood glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dL (percent perfect), blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL (extreme hyperglycemia), and blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL (hypoglycemia). RESULTS: Percent perfect glucose results improved from 45% to 53%, extreme hyperglycemia (blood glucose >300 mg/dL) fell from 11.7% to 5%. Hypoglycemia demonstrated a downward trend line, demonstrating that with improving glycemic control hypoglycemia rates did not increase. Percentage of patients receiving meal insulin within 30 minutes of blood glucose check increased from 35% to 73%. CONCLUSION: In the hospital, numerous obstacles were present that interfered with on-time meal insulin delivery. Establishing a meal delivery process with the nurse performing the premeal blood glucose check, delivering the meal, and administering the insulin improves overall blood glucose control. IMPLICATIONS: Nurse-led process improvement of blood glucose monitoring, meal tray delivery, and insulin administration does lead to improved glycemic control for the inpatient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".