SQuID (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis): Clinician acceptability

We previously implemented the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) demonstrating safe, effective treatment of low- to moderate-severity DKA in a non-intensive care unit setting. Since success and sustainability of interventions rely on staff buy-in, we assessed acceptability of SQuID among emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians.

We conducted a cross-sectional study in an urban academic hospital (March 2023-November 2023), surveying ED nurses (RNs) and physicians (MDs) and floor RNs and MDs treating patients on SQuID via emailed survey links. Clinicians could only take the survey once. We used Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, validated for staff acceptability of a new intervention, assessing eight domains with 5-point Likert responses. Clinicians were asked about prior experience with SQuID, and we assessed ED MD and RN preference (SQuID vs. intravenous [IV] insulin). Surveys included free-text boxes for comments. We present descriptive statistics including proportions with 95% confidence interval and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and conducted thematic analysis of free-text comments.

Our overall response rate (107/133) was 80% (34/42 ED RNs, 13/16 floor RNs, 47/57 ED MDs, 13/17 floor MDs), with first-time users of SQuID ranging from 7.7% (hospitalist MDs) to 35.3% (ED RNs) of participants. ED clinicians preferred SQuID over IV insulin (67% vs. 12%, 21% no preference). Acceptability was high across all domains and clinician types (median 4, IQR 4-5). Overall percentage of positive responses (4s and 5s) across domains was 92% (ED RNs [89%], floor RNs [89%], ED MDs [97%], floor MDs [87%]). We identified several themes among participant comments.

Acceptability was high across clinician types; 65% of ED clinicians preferred SQuID to IV insulin. Clinicians liked SQuID (affective attitude), found it easy to use (burden), were confident in its use (self-efficacy), felt that it improved outcomes (perceived effectiveness), found that it was fair to patients (ethicality), found that it made sense (intervention coherence), and found that it did not interfere with other activities (opportunity cost).