2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Top 10 Tips for Successfully Implementing a Diabetes Telehealth Program

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Diabetes management is well suited to use of telehealth, and recent improvements in both diabetes technology and telehealth policy make this an ideal time for diabetes providers to begin integrating telehealth into their practices. This article provides background information, specific recommendations for effective implementation, and a vision for the future landscape of telehealth within diabetes care to guide interested providers and practices on this topic.

          Note: This article was written prior to the COVID19 pandemic, and does not include information about recent telehealth policy changes that occurred during or as a result of this public health crisis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Effect of Intensive Treatment of Diabetes on the Development and Progression of Long-Term Complications in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus

          Long-term microvascular and neurologic complications cause major morbidity and mortality in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). We examined whether intensive treatment with the goal of maintaining blood glucose concentrations close to the normal range could decrease the frequency and severity of these complications. A total of 1441 patients with IDDM--726 with no retinopathy at base line (the primary-prevention cohort) and 715 with mild retinopathy (the secondary-intervention cohort) were randomly assigned to intensive therapy administered either with an external insulin pump or by three or more daily insulin injections and guided by frequent blood glucose monitoring or to conventional therapy with one or two daily insulin injections. The patients were followed for a mean of 6.5 years, and the appearance and progression of retinopathy and other complications were assessed regularly. In the primary-prevention cohort, intensive therapy reduced the adjusted mean risk for the development of retinopathy by 76 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 62 to 85 percent), as compared with conventional therapy. In the secondary-intervention cohort, intensive therapy slowed the progression of retinopathy by 54 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39 to 66 percent) and reduced the development of proliferative or severe nonproliferative retinopathy by 47 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 14 to 67 percent). In the two cohorts combined, intensive therapy reduced the occurrence of microalbuminuria (urinary albumin excretion of > or = 40 mg per 24 hours) by 39 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 21 to 52 percent), that of albuminuria (urinary albumin excretion of > or = 300 mg per 24 hours) by 54 percent (95 percent confidence interval 19 to 74 percent), and that of clinical neuropathy by 60 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 38 to 74 percent). The chief adverse event associated with intensive therapy was a two-to-threefold increase in severe hypoglycemia. Intensive therapy effectively delays the onset and slows the progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in patients with IDDM.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

            Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018

              To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D Exchange registry.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                dia
                Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd FloorNew Rochelle, NY 10801USA )
                1520-9156
                1557-8593
                December 2020
                07 December 2020
                07 December 2020
                : 22
                : 12
                : 920-928
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California.
                [ 2 ]UC Davis Center for Health and Technology, Sacramento, California.
                [ 3 ]Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
                [ 4 ]Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
                [ 5 ]UCSF Center for Digital Health Innovation, San Francisco, California.
                Author notes
                [*]Address correspondence to: Stephanie Crossen, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, 2516 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95817 scrossen@ 123456ucdavis.edu
                Article
                10.1089/dia.2020.0042
                10.1089/dia.2020.0042
                7757601
                32191141
                7e7105fc-55d2-4717-bfd6-121248d9b9d3
                © Stephanie Crossen, et., 2020; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, References: 51, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Reviews

                telehealth,diabetes mellitus,patient-generated health data,patient-centered care

                Comments

                Comment on this article