Comparing Glucose Monitoring Methods: Efficiency Insights in a Simulated Hospital Setting

Allan Davasgaium^1,2*Timothy Robbins¹Sailesh Sankar¹Bianca Leca^1,2Harpal Singh Randeva^1,2

• ¹Warwickshire Institute for the Study of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, England, United Kingdom
• ²Warwick Medical School, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, United Kingdom

While the advantages of flash glucose monitoring, also known as dynamic interstitial glucose monitoring (DIGM), are established in outpatient diabetes care, evidence of its impact within hospital settings remains limited. This study compared the efficiency of use and healthcare staff perception of DIGM monitoring versus traditional finger-prick testing in a simulated hospital environment.Twenty-five healthcare professionals (52% nurses, 48% allied healthcare professionals [AHCPs]) participated in simulated clinical scenarios involving glucose monitoring tasks using a high-fidelity mannequin. Participants performed three tasks: (A) applying a flash sensor, (B) scanning the sensor to obtain a glucose reading, and (C) performing a finger-prick test. Task durations and staff perceptions were assessed, with statistical analyses conducted using Python (version 3).DIGM was significantly faster than finger-prick testing. Sensor application took 75.4 ± 22.4 seconds, flash scanning took 26.4 ± 11.5 seconds, and finger-prick testing required 132.8 ± 37 seconds (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). DIGM saved approximately 106 seconds per glucose check based on these timings. Furthermore, a scenario of 20 readings per hospitalized patient translates to an average of 34.2 minutes saved per patient. While staff with greater experience performed tasks slightly faster, the overall time-saving benefit of DIGM remained substantial across all levels of experience. In addition, survey responses revealed a strong staff preference for DIGM, highlighting perceived benefits in workflow efficiency, patient comfort, and infection control.In conclusion, DIGM was significantly more efficient than finger-prick testing and strongly preferred by clinical staff. These technologies offer time-saving benefits that could improve patient experience, streamline clinical workflows, and potentially enhance diabetes management outcomes.