This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Messer, L. Articles by Ives, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Messer, L. Articles by Ives, B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Educating Families on Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

The DirecNet Navigator Pilot Study Experience

From the Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group, Tampa, Florida.

Correspondence to Laurel Messer, RN, DirecNet Coordinating Center, Jaeb Center for Health Research, 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 350, Tampa, FL 33647 (direcnet{at}jaeb.org).

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to describe the process of educating families and children with type 1 diabetes on real time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and to note the similarities and differences of training patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injections (MDI).

Methods

A total of 30 CSII participants and 27 MDI participants were educated using the Navigator RT-CGM in a clinical trial. Time spent with families for visits and calls was tracked and compared between patient groups. The Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) educators were surveyed to assess the most crucial, time intensive, and difficult educational concepts related to CGM.

Results

Of the 27 MDI families, an average of 9.6 hours was spent on protocol-prescribed visits and calls (not measured in CSII) and 2 hours on participant-initiated contacts over 3 months. MDI families required an average of 5.4 more phone contacts over 3 months than CSII families. According to the DirecNet educators, lag time and calibrations were the most crucial teaching concepts for successful RT-CGM use. The most time was spent on teaching technical aspects, troubleshooting, and insulin dosing. The most unanticipated difficulties were skin problems including irritation and the sensor not adhering well.

Conclusion

Educators who teach RT-CGM should emphasize lag time and calibration techniques, technical device training, and sensor insertion. Follow-up focus should include insulin dosing adjustments and skin issues. The time and effort required to introduce RT-CGM provided an opportunity for the diabetes educators to reemphasize good diabetes care practices and promote self-awareness and autonomy to patients and families.

The Diabetes Educator, Vol. 35, No. 1, 124-135 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0145721708325157


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous G Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in a Clinical Care Environment: Evidence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring (JDRF-CGM) trial Diabetes Care, January 1, 2010; 33(1): 17 - 22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]