Abstract
Objective
We aimed to investigate whether long-term regular training of diabetes liaison nurses (DLNs) could improve their diabetes-related knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice.
Methods
We enrolled 45 diabetes liaison nurses (DLNs) and 45 non-specialist nurses (controls). DLNs received 11 days of qualifying training, followed by regular theory classes and practice sessions for 4 years. All nurses were administered a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, knowledge about diabetes mellitus (DM), attitudes toward DM, and DM management practices, before and after the 4-year DLN training period.
Results
At baseline, there were no significant differences between the DLN and control groups for sex, age, educational level, nurse title/grade, work experience, hospital department, or questionnaire scores. At 4 years, the DLN group had a higher overall questionnaire score and higher scores for knowledge about DM, attitudes toward DM, and DM management practices, as compared with baseline scores.
Conclusion
Long-term regular training provided by a multidisciplinary diabetes care team can improve the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice levels of DLNs.
Keywords: Diabetes liaison nurse, multidisciplinary diabetes care team, training, questionnaire, knowledge, practice
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both.1 The prevalence of type 2 DM (T2DM) has shown an increasing trend owing to population aging and lifestyle changes.2,3 DM is becoming an epidemic in China, where the age-standardized prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes has been estimated at 9.7% to 11.6%.4 Over 30% of patients hospitalized owing to complications of diabetes are admitted to non-endocrinology departments for specialized management of their condition.5,6 Optimal glycemic control in patients admitted to the hospital is essential to curbing and delaying the onset of other severe complications.7,8 Therefore, non-endocrinology departments play an important role in the delivery of diabetes care.9 Although nurses in non-endocrinology departments have nursing experience relevant to their specialty, they may lack knowledge regarding diabetes nursing.
Studies have found that nurses demonstrate some knowledge deficits in clinical and theoretical diabetes-related topics, such as the initial treatment of hypoglycemia, insulin storage, and preparation, meal planning, the duration of action of hypoglycemic agents,10 and risk factors for cardiovascular complications.11 Notably, a 1-year training program failed to improve nurses’ motivational interviewing skills in routine diabetes care.12 The use of a multidisciplinary diabetes care team (MDCT) that provides patients with highly individualized care can improve patient outcomes and reduce overall costs.13,14 An MDCT represents a clinical program of excellence that improves the processes of care.15
Inadequate provision of nursing has been perceived to be an important barrier limiting health promotion in clinical practice.16 Knowledge deficiencies limit nurses’ capability to coordinate with doctors and to communicate effectively with patients, to help improve diabetes management.17 If a patient with T2DM is admitted to a non-endocrinology hospital department for the diagnosis and treatment of a medical condition, the nurses may find it difficult to control the patient’s blood glucose and to advise on diet, exercise, oral antidiabetic drug use, or insulin injection methods without the help of an MDCT.18
An MDCT was set up at The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in August 2011 because many patients with T2DM were being admitted to non-endocrinology wards that lacked specific support for the management of DM. An MDCT is a patient-centered care group that includes endocrinologists, DM-specialized nurses, and nutritionists as its core members, as well as other doctors, psychological consultants, statisticians, and information managers, when required. Additional members of the MDCT are diabetes liaison nurses (DLN), who are non-endocrinology or non-diabetes nurses who receive a qualification certificate after completing an intensive course that includes theoretical and practical training. DLNs are expected to have basic knowledge and skills in caring for patients with DM and evaluating diabetes-related nursing problems. Thus, DLNs have an important role in the management of patients with DM and act as a bridge between non-endocrinology and non-diabetes nurses, specialist diabetes nurses, and diabetes education nurses, who are all important members of the MDCT.
Limited information is available regarding whether the provision of long-term regular training would improve the knowledge and skills of DLNs involved in the management of DM. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether long-term regular training of DLNs could improve their diabetes-related knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP). To achieve this objective, DLNs received 4 years of centralized theoretical training (2–4 hours per quarter) and practical training (1–2 times per year); changes in their knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice of diabetes care were subsequently evaluated.
Methods
Study design
This matched cohort study was conducted at XXX Hospital during the period August 2011 to October 2015. DLNs (the DLN group) were enrolled based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) registered nurses not working in the endocrinology department; 2) educational background of junior college and engaged in clinical nursing care for over 5 years, or educational background of college and engaged in clinical nursing care for over 3 years, or educational background of postgraduate training and engaged in clinical nursing care for over 2 years; 3) has agreed to participate in the study and enthusiastic about DLN work and diabetes-related nursing and education; 4) superior professional skills and solid theoretical levels, and committed to professional development; 5) good communication skills and capabilities of organization and teaching; 6) at least one published article or formal publication; 7) in good health; and 8) has passed the MDCT screening and tests after training, as well as meets all DLN qualifications. Only one DLN was included from each nursing unit.
In addition, nurses not specialized in diabetes care (control group) were enrolled based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) non-DLNs matched to DLNs based on ward, age, educational background, and years of work; and 2) provided their informed consent agreeing to participate in this study.
Nurses were excluded from the final analysis if they met any of the following criteria: 1) having received advanced training; 2) currently on rotation; or 3) training was interrupted for >6 months or discontinued before the end of the 4-year study period for whatever reason (including maternity leave, prolonged illness, or a change in employment).
The ethics committee of our hospital granted approval for this study (No. 2019019). All nurses involved in the study provided their written informed consent.
DLN training
The responsibilities of DLNs in the hospital are as follows: 1) to have adequate knowledge and skills in diabetes nursing; 2) to provide appropriate nursing care to hospitalized patients with DM, including nursing assessment of the patient, identification of nursing problems, and provision of guidance on various aspects of diabetes management such as diet, exercise, use of antidiabetic drugs, insulin injection techniques, self-monitoring of blood glucose, relevance of psychological stress, and implementation of strategies to facilitate behavioral changes; and 3) to act as the liaison with the MDCT as necessary, including diabetes specialist nurses, to ensure that high-quality nursing is provided to patients with DM.
DLNs received training based on a plan developed by the management team of the MDCT; diabetes-related training was not provided to the control group in this study. First, DLNs underwent an 11-day period of qualifying training consisting of 4 days of theory (centralized teaching) followed by 7 days of one-to-one practical training at the bedside (Table 1). The training program was based on the Chinese Diabetes Care and Education Guidelines written by the Nursing and Diabetes Education Group of the Chinese Medical Association. Theory was taught by experts with rich experience in diabetes clinical care, nursing, education, and management practice, including senior nurses-in-charge, nursing specialists, nursing managers, and medical specialists of a higher grade than associate chief physician. Nurse practitioners or higher-grade nurses with clinical teaching experience were responsible for one-to-one practical training at the bedside, which was provided under the supervision of endocrinology specialists. All clinical teaching staff were trained by the MDCT to be fully aware of the aims, importance, and requirements of the assessment. To receive a DLN qualification certificate issued by the hospital, trainee DLNs were required to pass a written examination assessing their theoretical knowledge and a practical test.
Table 1.
Qualifying training given to diabetes liaison nurses during the first 11 days.
| Type of training | Duration | Training content | Training methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time, continuous, centralized teaching of theory | 4 days | Training overview Patient education techniquesBasic knowledge about DMDiet and exercise guidanceOral hypoglycemic drugsInsulin types and insulin injections Self-monitoring and management of blood glucosePrevention and treatment of complications Nursing in special populations or under special conditions | Multimedia classroom instructionCase analysis and discussionVideos Written examination |
| One-to-one clinical practice training delivered by a specialist | 1 week | Bedside individualized diabetes educationGroup education of patients with DMOral glucose tolerance testUse and maintenance of a portable blood glucose meterBlood glucose detection with a portable blood glucose meterUse of an insulin penUse of an insulin pumpDetection and treatment of hypoglycemiaCalorie calculation in a diet for patients with DMExercise guidance for patients with DMNursing evaluation of patients with DMRisk assessment of the diabetic foot | On-site instruction Operational demonstrationOperational re-demonstrationClass observation and practiceLive talksOn-site assessment |
DM: diabetes mellitus.
During the 4 years following qualification, DLNs received on-the-job training, provided by members of the MDCT, to update their diabetes nursing-related knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice. Centralized classes in theory (2–4 hours) were taught quarterly, and practical training (bedside or classroom) was provided 1 to 2 times per year (Table 2).
Table 2.
Four-year on-the-job training program delivered to diabetes liaison nurses.
| Type of training | Duration | Training content | Training methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centralized teaching of theory | One session (2–4 hours) per quarter | Knowledge/practice development within the hospital:Nursing patients with DMTreatment of patients with DMEducation and management of DMCase studyExternal training or symposia attendance | Multimedia classroom instructionVideo demonstrationCase analysis and discussion |
| Clinical practice training at the bedside and in a classroom | One or two sessions per year | Bedside ward round and consultationIn-hospital case analysis and discussion Demonstration of new techniques for treating DM Exposure to new technologies | Site instruction Operational demonstrationOperational re-demonstrationClassroom demonstration and practice |
DM: diabetes mellitus.
Questionnaire to assess diabetes-related knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP)
A questionnaire assessing diabetes KAP was administered to all nurses (i.e., both DLN and control groups) in August 2011 (before any nurses in the DLN group had initiated their DLN training) and again 4 years later, in October 2015, after DLNs had completed their 4-year training program. The questionnaire was designed by the authors and had a content validity of 0.875 and test–retest reliability of 0.711.19 The questionnaire was completed under the supervision of an investigator who was blinded to the grouping. An investigator ensured that all questions were answered, and the same investigator scored the questionnaires.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts.19 The first part collected demographic data such as sex, age, educational background, nurse title/grade, clinical experience, and department of work. This information enabled us to perform analyses to determine whether between-group demographic variations contributed to any differences in the scores obtained on the second part of the questionnaire. This latter part of the questionnaire comprised three sections assessing knowledge about diabetes, attitudes toward diabetes, and practical aspects of diabetes management, respectively. The section assessing knowledge about diabetes contained 29 questions (21 single-response questions and 8 multiple-choice questions, with 1 point scored for each correct answer) testing basic knowledge (seven items) and knowledge about dietary therapy (three items), exercise therapy (three items), oral antidiabetic drugs (three items), insulin injection (six items), and long-term complications (seven items). The total score for this section ranged from 0 to 29 points, with a higher score indicating a higher level of diabetes knowledge. The section assessing attitudes toward diabetes comprised eight items; responses to the first seven items were given according to a five-point scale where 1 indicated strongly agree and 5 indicated strongly disagree; the eighth item was a multiple-choice question. The total score for this section ranged from 7 to 35 points, with a higher score indicating a better attitude. The section pertaining to practical aspects of diabetes management contained eight items with responses given using a four-point scale (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often, and 4 = always). The total score for this section ranged from 8 to 32 points, and a higher score indicated a higher level of practice. The overall questionnaire score was obtained by summing the scores for the three sections. The scoring rate was calculated as (actual score/highest possible score) × 100%. The performance of each nurse on each section of the questionnaire was rated as poor (score ≤60%), moderate (60%–80%), or good (>80%).19
Questionnaires were distributed to the nurses at their workplace by the MDCT and were accompanied by an information sheet stating the objectives of the questionnaire. Quality control was achieved based on standardized training of the investigators, standardized methods of data collection, with rechecking of all responses and data collection.
Statistical analysis
According to a previous study using the same questionnaire,19 based on improvement of at least 10 points in diabetes-related knowledge after the intervention, a sample size of at least 30 participants per group provided 80% power with an α value of 0.05. Descriptive statistical analysis of quantitative data was conducted using IBM SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data with a normal distribution are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and non-normally-distributed data are expressed as median (range or interquartile range). Categorical data are expressed as n (%). We performed a factor analysis (repeated measures analysis of variance with Greenhouse–Geisser correction for violation of symmetry) on the results of the questionnaire to assess any interactions between training (yes vs. no) and time (0 vs. 4 years) in their effects on questionnaire scores. For the DLN group, differences in questionnaire scores before and after completion of the 4-year training program were analyzed using the paired t-test (normally distributed data) or Pearson’s chi-squared test (non-normally-distributed data). A P-value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Baseline characteristics of nurses enrolled in the study
Among the 90 nurses initially enrolled in the study, 10 of the 45 nurses in the DLN group (changed department, n = 5; maternity leave, n = 5) and 11 of the 45 nurses in the control group (maternity leave, n = 5; changed department, n = 4; missed more than one training session, n = 2) did not complete the study protocol. Therefore, 69 nurses (35 in the DLN group and 34 in the control group) completed the 4-year training program and were included in the final analysis.
The baseline characteristics of nurses are presented in Table 3. There were no significant differences between the DLN and control groups with regard to sex, age, educational level, nurse title/grade, work experience, or department in which nurses were employed (Table 3).
Table 3.
Baseline demographic characteristics of nurses included in the final analysis.
| Characteristics | DLN group (n = 35) | Control group (n = 34) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0.493 |
| Female | 35 (100%) | 33 (97.1%) | ||
| Age (years) | 25–29 | 12 (34.3%) | 18 (52.9%) | 0.437 |
| 30–34 | 11 (31.4%) | 9 (26.5%) | ||
| 35–39 | 10 (28.6%) | 6 (17.6%) | ||
| ≥40 | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
| Educational background | College | 2 (5.7%) | 4 (11.8%) | 0.591 |
| Bachelor | 31 (88.6%) | 29 (85.3%) | ||
| Master | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
| Title | Senior nurse | 20 (57.1%) | 25 (73.5%) | 0.208 |
| Supervisor nurse | 15 (42.9%) | 9 (26.5%) | ||
| Work experience (years) | 1–5 | 5 (14.3%) | 13 (38.2%) | 0.076 |
| 6–10 | 15 (42.9%) | 10 (29.4%) | ||
| ≥10 | 15 (42.9%) | 11 (32.4%) | ||
| Department | Internal medicine | 15 (42.9%) | 14 (41.2%) | 0.990 |
| Surgery | 18 (51.4%) | 18 (52.9%) | ||
| ICU | 2 (5.7%) | 2 (5.9%) | ||
Data are presented as n (%).
DLN: diabetes liaison nurse; ICU: intensive care unit.
Comparison of baseline questionnaire scores between DLN and control groups
There were no significant differences in baseline questionnaire scores between nurses in the two groups (Table 4). Notably, 62 of the 69 nurses (89.9%) rated poorly (score ≤60%) in the knowledge section of the questionnaire, especially for knowledge relating to risk factors for DM, microvascular complications. and appropriate injection sites for insulin.
Table 4.
Baseline questionnaire scores of nurses included in the final analysis.
| Characteristics | DLN group (n = 35) | Control group (n = 34) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge about diabetes mellitus | 12.83 ± 3.92 | 12.88 ± 3.24 | 0.951 |
| General | 3.91 ± 1.17 | 3.71 ± 1.49 | 0.520 |
| Diet | 1.17 ± 0.82 | 1.18 ± 0.90 | 0.980 |
| Exercise | 1.20 ± 0.87 | 1.26 ± 0.75 | 0.742 |
| Oral antidiabetic drugs | 1.34 ± 0.91 | 1.79 ± 0.98 | 0.051 |
| Insulin | 2.06 ± 1.35 | 1.59 ± 1.08 | 0.116 |
| Complications | 3.14 ± 1.52 | 3.35 ± 1.35 | 0.545 |
| Attitudes toward diabetes mellitus | 34.80 ± 5.28 | 35.12 ± 4.12 | 0.783 |
| Diabetes mellitus management practices | 25.94 ± 4.74 | 26.21 ± 3.78 | 0.800 |
| Overall score | 73.57 ± 10.01 | 74.21 ± 7.15 | 0.763 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
DLN: diabetes liaison nurse.
Factor analysis of the interaction between training and time in effects on overall and subsection questionnaire scores
Training and time showed a significant difference between the DLN and control groups; there was a correlation between training and time (P < 0.05). The DLN group had a total KAP score of 18 after the training, a 12-point increase: 6 points in the knowledge section, 7.46 in attitude, and 4.66 in the practice section (Table 5).
Table 5.
Factor analysis of the interaction between training and time in their effects on overall and subsection questionnaire scores.
| Group | Baseline | At 4 years | Change (%) |
Intervention effect |
Time effect |
Interaction effect |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | P | F | P | F | P | ||||
| Overall score | 122.41 | <0.001 | 47.857 | <0.001 | 16.871 | <0.001 | |||
| DLN group (n = 35) | 73.57 ± 10.01 | 91.69 ± 4.49 | +24.6 | ||||||
| Control group (n = 34) | 74.21 ± 7.15 | 78.38 ± 7.91 | +5.7 | ||||||
| Knowledge about diabetes mellitus | 87.070 | <0.001 | 25.905 | <0.001 | 6.531 | 0.013 | |||
| DLN group (n = 35) | 12.83 ± 3.92 | 18.83 ± 3.57 | +46.9 | ||||||
| Control group (n = 34) | 12.88 ± 3.24 | 14.65 ± 4.28 | +14.0 | ||||||
| Attitudes toward diabetes mellitus | 56.043 | <0.001 | 32.670 | <0.001 | 13.231 | 0.001 | |||
| DLN group (n = 35) | 34.80 ± 5.28 | 42.26 ± 2.39 | +21.6 | ||||||
| Control group (n = 34) | 35.12 ± 4.18 | 36.12 ± 3.89 | +2.9 | ||||||
| Diabetes mellitus management practices | 38.407 | <0.001 | 10.983 | 0.001 | 4.387 | 0.04 | |||
| DLN group (n = 35) | 25.94 ± 4.74 | 30.60 ± 1.29 | +18.2 | ||||||
| Control group (n = 34) | 26.21 ± 3.78 | 27.62 ± 2.67 | +5.3 | ||||||
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
DLN: diabetes liaison nurse.
Changes in questionnaire scores for knowledge about DM among DLNs after 4 years of on-the-job training
The effects of the 4-year training program on knowledge about DM are depicted in Table 6. The proportion of nurses who gave correct responses was significantly increased at 4 years (compared with baseline) for items regarding chronic complications of DM, typical symptoms of DM, appropriate time to take acarbose, proportion of carbohydrates in a diet for DM, comprehensive treatment of DM, the most common side effects of metformin, principles of foot protection in patients with DM, appropriate time to take gliquidone, blood glucose monitoring frequency in patients receiving insulin injections, principles of dietary therapy for DM, assessment of exercise levels using heart rate in patients with DM, diabetic microangiopathy, diabetic exercise therapy, symptoms of hypoglycemia, and risk factors for DM (all P < 0.05; Table 6).
Table 6.
Number (proportion) of diabetes liaison nurses giving correct responses for each item on the knowledge about DM section of the questionnaire, before and after the 4-year training program.
| Item | Baseline n (%) | At 4 years n (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fasting plasma glucose range | 32 (91.43) | 34 (97.14) | 0.307 |
| Chronic complications of DM | 29 (76.32) | 34 (97.14) | 0.048 |
| Typical symptoms of DM | 26 (82.86) | 33 (94.29) | 0.022 |
| Optimal indicators of blood glucose control at 3 months | 28 (80.00) | 32 (91.43) | 0.175 |
| Optimal exercise duration | 27 (77.14) | 32 (91.43) | 0.103 |
| Appropriate time to take acarbose | 21 (60.00) | 32 (91.43) | 0.002 |
| Carbohydrate proportion in a diet for DM | 14 (40.00) | 30 (85.71) | <0.001 |
| Five aspects regarding comprehensive treatment of DM | 19 (54.29) | 28 (80.00) | 0.023 |
| Monitoring of blood glucose frequency during treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis | 23 (65.71) | 28 (80.00) | 0.182 |
| Most common side effects of metformin | 14 (40.00) | 27 (77.14) | 0.002 |
| Main cause of death in patients with type 2 DM | 19 (54.29) | 26 (82.86) | 0.083 |
| Principles of foot protection in patients with DM | 11 (31.43) | 26 (82.86) | <0.001 |
| Appropriate time to take gliquidone | 12 (34.29) | 25 (71.43) | 0.002 |
| Blood glucose monitoring frequency in patients receiving insulin injections | 11 (31.43) | 22 (62.86) | 0.009 |
| Correct carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio in patients with DM | 17 (48.57) | 21 (60.00) | 0.341 |
| Glucose monitoring during treatment of hypoglycemia | 20 (57.14) | 21 (60.00) | 0.810 |
| Diagnostic criteria for DM | 13 (37.14) | 20 (57.14) | 0.096 |
| Principles of dietary therapy for DM | 10 (28.57) | 20 (57.14) | 0.016 |
| Assessing exercise levels using heart rate in patients with DM | 6 (17.15) | 20 (57.14) | 0.001 |
| Side effects of insulin therapy | 20 (57.14) | 20 (57.14) | 1.000 |
| Distinction between rapid-acting and other insulins | 14 (40.00) | 19 (54.29) | 0.235 |
| Diabetic microangiopathy | 6 (17.15) | 18 (51.43) | 0.003 |
| Diabetic exercise therapy | 9 (25.71) | 17 (48.57) | 0.049 |
| Frequency of fundus examinations | 14 (40.00) | 16 (45.71) | 0.632 |
| Symptoms of hypoglycemia | 7 (18.42) | 16 (45.71) | 0.023 |
| Use of dynamic blood glucose monitoring | 12 (34.29) | 14 (40.00) | 0.623 |
| Appropriate sites for insulin injection | 8 (22.86) | 12 (34.29) | 0.293 |
| Insulin pump usage | 7 (18.42) | 10 (28.57) | 0.406 |
| Risk factors for DM | 0 (0) | 6 (17.15) | 0.011 |
DM: diabetes mellitus.
Changes in scores for attitudes toward DM among DLNs after 4 years of on-the-job training
The 4-year training program improved the scores obtained by DLNs in the attitudes toward DM section of the questionnaire (Table 7). Significant improvements in scores at 4 years (vs. baseline) were observed for the following items: “How severe is DM?”, “Can patients with DM live and work normally?”, “Can DM be cured?”, “Are patients with DM passive during treatment?”, “How important is knowledge about DM?”, “Willing to provide training in DM?”, and “DM training topics” (all P < 0.05; Table 7).
Table 7.
Scores for items in the attitudes toward diabetes mellitus section of the questionnaire completed by diabetes liaison nurses, before and after the 4-year training program.
| Item | Baseline | At 4 years | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| How severe is DM? | 2.80 ± 1.11 | 4.03 ± 0.38 | <0.001 |
| Can patients with DM live and work normally? | 4.09 ± 0.78 | 4.46 ± 0.51 | 0.021 |
| Can DM be cured? | 2.60 ± 1.04 | 4.09 ± 0.66 | <0.001 |
| Are patients with DM passive during treatment? | 3.89 ± 1.13 | 4.43 ± 0.78 | 0.022 |
| How important is knowledge about DM? | 4.29 ± 0.89 | 4.86 ± 0.36 | 0.001 |
| Willing to attend DM training? | 4.51 ± 0.70 | 4.77 ± 0.423 | 0.069 |
| Willing to provide DM training? | 4.34 ± 0.68 | 4.83 ± 0.38 | 0.001 |
| DM training topics | 8.29 ± 3.72 | 10.80 ± 1.37 | 0.001 |
Changes in scores for DM management practices among DLNs after 4 years of on-the-job training
The 4-year training program resulted in significant improvements in scores obtained by DLNs on all items in the DM management practices section of the questionnaire (P < 0.05; Table 8).
Table 8.
Scores for items in the diabetes mellitus management practices section of the questionnaire completed by diabetes liaison nurses, before and after the 4-year training program.
| Item | Baseline | At 4 years | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change needle for each injection | 2.86 ± 0.94 | 4.00 ± 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Change site of each injection | 3.17 ± 0.89 | 3.86 ± 0.36 | <0.001 |
| Pinch the skin as needed during each injection | 3.14 ± 0.88 | 3.57 ± 0.50 | 0.015 |
| Take a blood sample from the side of the finger to test blood glucose | 3.31 ± 0.83 | 3.80 ± 0.47 | 0.004 |
| Sterilize with alcohol before taking blood to test blood glucose | 3.71 ± 0.67 | 4.00 ± 0.00 | 0.016 |
| Inform patient of the right time to take oral antidiabetic drugs | 3.49 ± 0.78 | 3.83 ± 0.38 | 0.024 |
| Detect and treat hypoglycemia | 3.34 ± 0.73 | 3.80 ± 0.41 | 0.002 |
| Actively perform patient education | 2.91 ± 0.82 | 3.74 ± 0.44 | <0.001 |
Discussion
A notable finding of this study was that, in the absence of any training, nurses in both the DLN and control groups had only limited knowledge about DM, with around 90% of nurses rated as “poor” on the knowledge section of the questionnaire. Importantly, DLNs who completed the training program (including 11 days of initial qualifying training and additional on-the-job training over 4 years) demonstrated significant improvements in their scores for knowledge about DM, attitudes toward DM, and DM management practices. By contrast, nurses in the control group showed no such improvements over the same 4-year period. These findings indicate that long-term regular training, provided by an MDCT, can improve KAP levels among DLNs. As liaison nurse systems are believed to promote clinical effectiveness and the dissemination of research findings,20 the improvement in DM-related knowledge and practice levels of DLNs after training would be expected to enhance the quality of care given to patients with DM who are admitted (for whatever reason) to non-endocrinology departments.
The present study also included non-DLNs as controls, i.e., nurses who did not receive the diabetes training. The aim of comparing the two groups was to explore differences in diabetes-related knowledge and skills between DLNs and non-DLNs. Nurses in the DLN group received the intervention, i.e., long-term regular training in diabetes-related knowledge and skills (including 2–4 hours’ theoretical training and 1–2 practical training sessions); no special diabetes-related training was provided for nurses in the control group. Age, years’ working, educational background, and nurses’ title at inclusion were generally comparable between the two groups; the only difference between the groups was with respect to receiving diabetes training. Therefore, differences between the two groups should mainly arise as a result this training. Importantly, the results showed improvements in the skills and knowledge of DLNs after the intervention whereas the control group showed no improvement.
Nurses are a potentially important barrier to patient education and counseling in practice.16 Any deficiency in knowledge and/or communication skills would limit the ability of a nurse to coordinate with other medical staff (including doctors) and to provide clear and convincing guidance to patients.17 When a patient with DM is admitted to a non-endocrinology ward (e.g., to receive specialized treatment for another condition), nurses on that ward may find it challenging to manage the patient’s DM (including blood glucose control, advice on diet or exercise, oral antidiabetic drug administration, or insulin injection) without the help of an MDCT.18 Furthermore, the optimal management of DM requires patients to actively participate in their care, which occurs most effectively when an MDCT is involved.21 Building long-term relationships, integrating knowledge by means of an MDCT, and ensuring adequate documentation is important in the provision of consistent diabetes-related information to the patient.22 An MDCT can provide patients with highly individualized care, including medical care, diabetes education, nutritional advice, exercise and lifestyle coaching, counseling, and monitoring of drug effects; this individualized care can improve patient outcomes and reduce overall costs. The involvement of an MDCT can also help minimize the risk of DM-related complications and improve the treatment of any complications 23 through a coordinated approach that facilitates timely communication and intervention. DLNs are important members of an MDCT, providing a link between specialist teams and nurses working in the clinical area.20
The training protocol followed in this study led to an obvious improvement in DM-related knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice among DLNs, as compared with baseline levels. We suggest that training DLNs in DM-related knowledge and practices would improve the delivery of patient-centered diabetes care in non-endocrinology wards. The key role of a DLN is to provide knowledge and health education to patients with DM, as well as diabetes-related knowledge and guidance to other nurses in their department.24 Because each trained DLN in our study worked in a different hospital department, they could help staff members within different departments to improve their understanding of DM and how it should be managed. Zwar et al.25 found that the implementation of multidisciplinary care programs for patients with DM leads to significant decreases in HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol levels, improved metabolism, and a reduction in cardiovascular risk. Compared with untrained nurses, a DLN is in a better position to provide patient education and improve patients’ knowledge about diabetes, thereby improving self-management through better adherence to therapy and implementation of lifestyle modifications; this can be expected to yield benefits in terms of HbA1c and blood glucose levels.26 Therefore, the inclusion of trained DLNs in non-endocrine departments can play a positive role in implementation of multidisciplinary nursing teams and management of blood glucose levels in patients with DM.
Several previous studies have reported that staff training can improve diabetes outcomes in hospitalized patients. For example, implementation of a 5-year stewardship intervention program (including organizational measures and quality improvement activities in drug storage, prescription, dispensing, administration, and monitoring) at a hospital in China resulted in a lower incidence of hypoglycemia in non-endocrinology wards, an increase in the proportion of nurses who correctly managed hypoglycemia (from 41.5% to 67.2%), and an increased proportion of outpatients receiving standardized insulin injection education (from 80% to 95.2%).27 Furthermore, training nurses as diabetes management mentors can improve their clinical knowledge base and skill level and enhance their ability to resolve clinical issues.28 In addition, educational interventions provided by clinical nurse specialists and nursing education specialists can lead to improved timing of bedtime glucose measurement and bedtime snack documentation.29 A diabetes education program can also enhance the knowledge of nurses caring for hospitalized patients with DM.30 Nevertheless, a recent study revealed that barriers remain in the implementation of DLN training and that measures must be taken.31 More importantly, the present study showed that some important knowledge items did not change after training. Future studies should include multiple time points for assessing knowledge and skills, and the content of training should be adjusted to focus on these items.
This study has several limitations. One potential drawback is that KAP levels were only assessed theoretically through use of a questionnaire. In future studies, operational skills should be tested to demonstrate sustained improvement in skills. Second, the sample size in this study was relatively small, participating nurses were restricted to only one hospital, and some non-endocrinology departments may not have been represented. Third, the results focused only on nurses; inclusion of patients with DM in the analysis would have added value to assessment of the effectiveness of training. In addition, measurements were not taken of patient HbA1c and blood glucose levels, to evaluate whether participation in the training improved DM management among DLNs in non-endocrinology departments. Finally, the questionnaire was completed only once after the completion of training; therefore, the long-term sustainability of knowledge and skill improvement gained by the nurses could not be confirmed. A longitudinal study with multiple time points would be useful.
Conclusion
In the absence of any training, nurses had only limited knowledge about DM and its management. Long-term regular training provided by an MDCT improved KAP levels among DLNs. The inclusion of DLNs in non-endocrinology departments can potentially improve the quality of diabetes care provided to patients.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the nurses who volunteered to participate in this study.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
- 1.Introduction: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: S1–S2. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 2.Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 1047–1053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Menke A, Rust KF, Fradkin J, et al. Associations between trends in race/ethnicity, aging, and body mass index with diabetes prevalence in the United States: a series of cross-sectional studies. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 328–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hu C, Jia W. Diabetes in China: epidemiology and genetic risk factors and their clinical utility in personalized medication. Diabetes 2018; 67: 3–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cavender MA, Steg PG, Smith SC, Jr., et al. Impact of Diabetes mellitus on hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular events, and death: outcomes at 4 years from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry. Circulation 2015; 132: 923–931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Khalid JM, Raluy-Callado M, Curtis BH, et al. Rates and risk of hospitalisation among patients with type 2 diabetes: retrospective cohort study using the UK General Practice Research Database linked to English Hospital Episode Statistics. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68: 40–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Khazrai YM, Defeudis G, Pozzilli P. Effect of diet on type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2014; 30: 24–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Low Wang CC, Hess CN, Hiatt WR, et al. Clinical Update: cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus - mechanisms, management, and clinical considerations. Circulation 2016; 133: 2459–2502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Francisco MA. Instruments that measure nurses' knowledge about diabetes: an integrative review. J Nurs Meas 2013; 21: 137–152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yacoub MI, Demeh WM, Darawad MW, et al. An assessment of diabetes-related knowledge among registered nurses working in hospitals in Jordan. Int Nurs Rev 2014; 61: 255–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Daly B, Arroll B, Sheridan N, et al. Diabetes knowledge of nurses providing community care for diabetes patients in Auckland, New Zealand. Prim Care Diabetes 2014; 8: 215–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jansink R, Braspenning J, Laurant M, et al. Minimal improvement of nurses' motivational interviewing skills in routine diabetes care one year after training: a cluster randomized trial. BMC Fam Pract 2013; 14: 44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hung SL, Fu SN, Lau PS, et al. A qualitative study on why did the poorly-educated Chinese elderly fail to attend nurse-led case manager clinic and how to facilitate their attendance. Int J Equity Health 2015; 14: 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wang C, Mai L, Yang C, et al. Reducing major lower extremity amputations after the introduction of a multidisciplinary team in patient with diabetes foot ulcer. BMC Endocr Disord 2016; 16: 38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Arnold P, Scheurer D, Dake AW, et al. Hospital guidelines for diabetes management and the Joint Commission-American Diabetes Association Inpatient Diabetes Certification. Am J Med Sci 2016; 351: 333–341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Casey D. Nurses' perceptions, understanding and experiences of health promotion. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16: 1039–1049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jansink R, Braspenning J, van der Weijden T, et al. Primary care nurses struggle with lifestyle counseling in diabetes care: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract 2010; 11: 41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Welch G, Zagarins SE, Santiago-Kelly P, et al. An internet-based diabetes management platform improves team care and outcomes in an urban Latino population. Diabetes Care 2015; 38: 561–567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Yang L, Liu F, Huang J. The building of a multidisciplinary medical team for diabetes education: training effectiveness evaluation. J Nurs Sci 2014; 29: 54–56. [Google Scholar]
- 20.McKeeney L. Are link-nurse systems an effective means for improving patient care? Prof Nurse 2003; 19: 203–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kent D, D'Eramo Melkus G, Stuart PM, et al. Reducing the risks of diabetes complications through diabetes self-management education and support. Popul Health Manag 2013; 16: 74–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wigert H, Wikstrom E. Organizing person-centred care in paediatric diabetes: multidisciplinary teams, long-term relationships and adequate documentation. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Malcolm JC, Maranger J, Taljaard M, et al. Into the abyss: diabetes process of care indicators and outcomes of defaulters from a Canadian tertiary care multidisciplinary diabetes clinic. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Grossman S. Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly: role of the pharmacist in a multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc 2011; 4: 149–154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zwar NA, Hermiz O, Comino EJ, et al. Do multidisciplinary care plans result in better care for patients with type 2 diabetes? Aust Fam Physician 2007; 36: 85–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lo MC, Freeman M, Lansang MC. Effect of a multidisciplinary-assisted resident diabetes clinic on resident knowledge and patient outcomes. J Grad Med Educ 2013; 5: 145–149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Zhao RY, He XW, Shan YM, et al. A stewardship intervention program for safe medication management and use of antidiabetic drugs. Clin Interv Aging 2015; 10: 1201–1212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Modic MB, Canfield C, Kaser N, et al. A diabetes management mentor program: outcomes of a clinical nurse specialist initiative to empower staff nurses. Clin Nurse Spec 2012; 26: 263–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sievers BA, Negley KD, Carlson ML, et al. Enhancing diabetes management while teaching quality improvement methods. J Contin Educ Nurs 2014; 45: 14–19; quiz 20–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yacoub MI, Demeh WM, Barr JL, et al. Outcomes of a diabetes education program for registered nurses caring for individuals with diabetes. J Contin Educ Nurs 2015; 46: 129–133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Riordan F, McHugh SM, Murphy K, et al. The role of nurse specialists in the delivery of integrated diabetes care: a cross-sectional survey of diabetes nurse specialist services. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e015049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]