4.3 Article

National survey of the management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) in the UK in 2014

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 252-260

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.12875

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To examine, in a national survey, the outcomes of adult patients presenting with DKA in 2014, mapped against accepted UK national guidance. Methods Data were collected in a standardized form covering clinical and biochemical outcomes, risk and discharge planning. The form was sent to all UK diabetes specialist teams (n = 220). Anonymized data were collected on five consecutive patients admitted with DKA between 1 May 2014 and 30 November 2014. Results A total of 283 forms were received (n = 281 patients) from 72 hospitals, of which 71.4% used the national guidelines. The results showed that 7.8% of cases occurred in existing inpatients, 6.1% of admissions were newly diagnosed diabetes and 33.7% of patients had had at least one episode of DKA in the preceding year. The median times to starting 0.9% sodium chloride and intravenous insulin were 41.5 and 60 min, respectively. The median time to resolution was 18.7 h and the median length of hospital stay was 2.6 days. Significant adverse biochemical outcomes occurred, with 27.6% of patients developing hypoglycaemia and 55% reported as having hypokalaemia. There were also significant issues with care processes. Initial nurse-led observations were carried out well, but subsequent patient monitoring remained suboptimal. Most patients were not seen by a member of the diabetes specialist team during the first 6 h, but 95% were seen before discharge. A significant minority of discharge letters to primary care did not contain necessary information. Conclusion Despite widespread adoption of national guidance, several areas of management of DKA are suboptimal, being associated with avoidable biochemical and clinical risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available