The Queensland high risk foot form (QHRFF) - is it a reliable and valid clinical research tool for foot disease?

Foot Problems in Older Adults Presenting to a Falls and Balance Clinic

INTRODUCTION

Foot problems, including musculoskeletal problems, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease and dermatologic pathology are common in older adults and are associated with an increased risk of falling. Multicomponent podiatry interventions have been shown to reduce the incidence of falls. This paper aimed to identify older adults requiring podiatry input in a Falls and Balance clinic; to describe the model of foot health care they receive; to explore cross-sectional associations between foot problems and function and ultimately demonstrate the role of podiatry input in the multidisciplinary management of falls risk.

METHODS

Cohort study of patients attending a Falls and Balance Clinic for Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Demographic information was collected and functional independence, mobility, foot problems, and footwear were assessed in the clinic.

RESULTS

One-hundred and two patients were included; median age 79.3 (73-84.3) years, 68.6% female, 93.1% residing independently, 62.7% used a gait aid. Podiatry referrals were made in 80.4% of cases, with muscle weakness being the most common problem identified (90.2%); 74.8% were found to be wearing inappropriate footwear. Most patients received footwear education and half were prescribed foot and ankle strengthening exercises. Hallux and lesser toe weakness were associated with lower Short Physical Performance Battery scores (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The majority of older adults in the Falls and Balance Clinic required podiatry input, with foot weakness and inappropriate footwear being common reasons for referral. Those with weakness of the hallux and lesser toes had poorer balance and mobility, which is known to be associated with greater falls risk. This highlights the need for podiatry assessment and interventions as part of the multidisciplinary approach to the management of falls risk in older adults.

Risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcer development or amputation: a review of reviews

BACKGROUND

In adults with diabetes, diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and amputation are common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

PURPOSE

Identify tools predicting risk of DFU or amputation that are prognostically accurate and clinically feasible.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of tools predicting DFU or amputation published in multiple databases from initiation to January, 2023. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) and provided a narrative review of reviews describing performance characteristics (calibration and discrimination) of prognostically accurate tools. For such tools, we additionally reviewed original studies to ascertain clinical applicability and usability (variables included, score calculation, and risk categorization).

RESULTS

We identified 3 eligible SRs predicting DFU or amputation risk. Two recent SRs (2020 and 2021) were rated as moderate and low ROB respectively. Four risk prediction models - Boyko, Martins-Mendes (simplified), Martins-Mendes (original), and PODUS 2020 had good prognostic accuracy for predicting DFU or amputation over time horizons ranging from 1- to 5-years. PODUS 2020 predicts absolute average risk (e.g., 6% risk of DFU at 2 years) and consists of 3-binary variables with a simple, summative scoring (0-4) making it feasible for clinic use. The other 3 models categorize risk subjectively (e.g., high-risk for DFU at 3 years), include 2-7 variables, and require a calculation device. No data exist to inform rescreening intervals. Furthermore, the effectiveness of targeted interventions in decreasing incidence of DFU or amputation in response to prediction scores is unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review of reviews, we identified 4 prognostically accurate models that predict DFU or amputation in persons with diabetes. The PODUS 2020 model, predicting absolute average DFU risk at 2 years, has the most favorable prognostic accuracy and is clinically feasible. Rescreening intervals and effectiveness of intervention based on prediction score are uncertain.

Self-Monitoring Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers with the MyFootCare App: A Mixed Methods Study

People with diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs) need to perform self-care consistently over many months to promote healing and to mitigate risks of hospitalisation and amputation. However, during that time, improvement in their DFU can be hard to detect. Hence, there is a need for an accessible method to self-monitor DFUs at home. We developed a new mobile phone app, "MyFootCare", to self-monitor DFU healing progression from photos of the foot. The aim of this study is to evaluate the engagement and perceived value of MyFootCare for people with a plantar DFU over 3 months' duration. Data are collected through app log data and semi-structured interviews (weeks 0, 3, and 12) and analysed through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Ten out of 12 participants perceive MyFootCare as valuable to monitor progress and to reflect on events that affected self-care, and seven participants see it as potentially valuable to enhance consultations. Three app engagement patterns emerge: continuous, temporary, and failed engagement. These patterns highlight enablers for self-monitoring (such as having MyFootCare installed on the participant's phone) and barriers (such as usability issues and lack of healing progress). We conclude that while many people with DFUs perceive app-based self-monitoring as valuable, actual engagement can be achieved for some but not for all people because of various facilitators and barriers. Further research should target improving usability, accuracy and sharing with healthcare professionals and test clinical outcomes when using the app.

Australian guideline on diagnosis and management of peripheral artery disease: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease

BACKGROUND

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is implicated in up to 50% of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in this population. An evidence-based guideline that is relevant to the national context including consideration of the unique geographical and health care system differences between Australia and other countries, and delivery of culturally safe care to First Nations people, is urgently required to improve outcomes for patients with PAD and DFU in Australia. We aimed to identify and adapt current international guidelines for diagnosis and management of patients with PAD and DFU to develop an updated Australian guideline.

METHODS

Using a panel of national content experts and the National Health and Medical Research Council procedures, the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines were adapted to the Australian context. The guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied to the IWGDF guideline for PAD by the expert panel. Recommendations were then adopted, adapted or excluded, and specific considerations for implementation, population subgroups, monitoring and future research in Australia were developed with accompanying clinical pathways provided to support guideline implementation.

RESULTS

Of the 17 recommendations from the IWGDF Guideline on diagnosis, prognosis and management of PAD in patients with diabetes with and without foot ulcers, 16 were adopted for the Australian guideline and one recommendation was adapted due to the original recommendation lacking feasibility in the Australian context. In Australia we recommend all people with diabetes and DFU undergo clinical assessment for PAD with accompanying bedside testing. Further vascular imaging and possible need for revascularisation should be considered for all patients with non-healing DFU irrespective of bedside results. All centres treating DFU should have expertise in, and/or rapid access to facilities necessary to diagnose and treat PAD, and should provide multidisciplinary care post-operatively, including implementation of intensive cardiovascular risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

A guideline containing 17 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of PAD for Australian patients with DFU was developed with accompanying clinical pathways. As part of the adaptation of the IWGDF guideline to the Australian context, recommendations are supported by considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities, and in relation to specific subgroups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and geographically remote people. This manuscript has been published online in full with the authorisation of Diabetes Feet Australia and can be found on the Diabetes Feet Australia website: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ .

Australian guideline on offloading treatment for foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease

BACKGROUND

Pressure offloading treatment is critical for healing diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). Yet the 2011 Australian DFU guidelines regarding offloading treatment are outdated. A national expert panel aimed to develop a new Australian guideline on offloading treatment for people with DFU by adapting international guidelines that have been assessed as suitable to adapt to the Australian context.

METHODS

National Health and Medical Research Council procedures were used to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines to the Australian context. We systematically screened, assessed and judged all IWGDF offloading recommendations using best practice ADAPTE and GRADE frameworks to decide which recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in the Australian context. For each recommendation, we re-evaluated the wording, quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, and provided rationale, justifications and implementation considerations, including for geographically remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This guideline, along with five accompanying Australian DFU guidelines, underwent public consultation, further revision and approval by ten national peak bodies (professional organisations).

RESULTS

Of the 13 original IWGDF offloading treatment recommendations, we adopted four and adapted nine. The main reasons for adapting the IWGDF recommendations included differences in quality of evidence ratings and clarification of the intervention(s) and control treatment(s) in the recommendations for the Australian context. For Australians with plantar DFU, we recommend a step-down offloading treatment approach based on their contraindications and tolerance. We strongly recommend non-removable knee-high offloading devices as first-line treatment, removable knee-high offloading devices as second-line, removable ankle-high offloading devices third-line, and medical grade footwear as last-line. We recommend considering using felted foam in combination with the chosen offloading device or footwear to further reduce plantar pressure. If offloading device options fail to heal a person with plantar DFU, we recommend considering various surgical offloading procedures. For people with non-plantar DFU, depending on the type and location of the DFU, we recommend using a removable offloading device, felted foam, toe spacers or orthoses, or medical grade footwear. The six new guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ .

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a new Australian evidence-based guideline on offloading treatment for people with DFU that has been endorsed by ten key national peak bodies. Health professionals implementing these offloading recommendations in Australia should produce better DFU healing outcomes for their patients, communities, and country.

Multiple factors predict longer and shorter time-to-ulcer-free in people with diabetes-related foot ulcers: Survival analyses of a large prospective cohort followed-up for 24-months

AIMS

To investigate factors independently associated with time-to-(being)-ulcer-free, time-varying effects and predict adjusted ulcer-free probabilities, in a large prospective cohort with diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) followed-up for 24 months.

METHODS

Patients presenting with DFU(s) to 65 Diabetic Foot Services across Queensland, Australia, between July-2011 and December-2017 were included. Demographic, comorbidity, limb, ulcer, and treatment factors were captured at presentation. Patients were followed-up until ulcer-free (all DFU(s) healed), amputation, death or two years. Factors associated with time-to-ulcer-free were investigated using both Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric survival models to explore time-varying effects and plot predicted adjusted ulcer-free probability graphs.

RESULTS

Of 4,709 included patients (median age 63 years, 69.5% male), median time-to-ulcer-free was 112 days (IQR:40->730), with 68.4% ulcer-free within two years. Factors independently associated with longer time-to-ulcer-free were each year of age younger than 60 years, living in a regional or remote area, smoking, neuropathy, peripheral artery disease (PAD), ulcer size >1 cm², deep ulcer and mild infection (all p < 0.05). Time-varying effects were found for PAD and ulcer size limiting their association to six months only. Shorter time-to-ulcer-free was associated with recent DFU treatment by a podiatrist and receiving knee-high offloading treatment (both p < 0.05). Predicted adjusted ulcer-free probability graphs reported largest differences in time-to-ulcer-free over 24-months for geographical remoteness and PAD factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors predicted longer and shorter time-to-ulcer-free in people presenting with DFUs. Considering these factors, their time-varying effects and adjusted ulcer-free probability graphs, should aid the prediction of the likely time-to-(being)-ulcer-free for DFU patients.

Clinician Assessment Tools for Patients with Diabetic Foot Disease: A Systematic Review

The amputation rate in patients with diabetes is 15 to 40 times higher than in patients without diabetes. To avoid major complications, the identification of high-risk in patients with diabetes through early assessment highlights as a crucial action. Clinician assessment tools are scales in which clinical examiners are specifically trained to make a correct judgment based on patient outcomes that helps to identify at-risk patients and monitor the intervention. The aim of this study is to carry out a systematic review of valid and reliable Clinician assessment tools for measuring diabetic foot disease-related variables and analysing their psychometric properties. The databases used were PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro, and EMBASE. The search terms used were foot, ankle, diabetes, diabetic foot, assessment, tools, instruments, score, scale, validity, and reliability. The results showed 29 validated studies with 39 Clinician assessment tools and six variables. There is limited evidence on all of the psychometric characteristics of the Clinician assessment tools included in this review, although some instruments have been shown to be valid and reliable for the assessment of diabetic neuropathy (Utah Early Neuropathy Scale or UENS); ulceration risk (Queensland High Risk Foot Form or QHRFF); diabetic foot ulcer assessment, scoring, and amputation risk (Perfusion, extent, depth, infection and sensation scale or PEDIS and Site, Ischemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection, and Depth score or SINBAD); and diabetic foot ulcer measurement (Leg Ulcer Measurement Tool LUMT).

Moderate-to-Vigorous-Intensity Physical Activity Observed in People With Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers Over a One-Week Period

BACKGROUND

Regular moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity results in health benefits in people with diabetes. No study has observed the moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity typically performed by people with diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) in their everyday free-living environments. We observed the bouts, and accumulated time, spent doing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity in cases with DFU compared with diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and diabetes (DM) controls over a one-week period.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional case-control study. Participants wore a multisensor device for >5 days (>22 hours per day). Primary outcomes included the number, duration (minutes) and intensity (metabolic equivalent tasks [METs]) of bouts of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (defined as at least >3 METs for >10 consecutive minutes). Secondary outcomes included the total accumulated times spent doing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (>3 METs) and doing sedentary-intensity activity (<1.5 METs). DFU subgroups with minor amputations and nonremovable offloading devices were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 DM, 23 DPN, and 27 DFU participants were included. All groups recorded similar low median daily numbers (0.33, 0.29, 0.25 numbers, respectively), duration (15, 17, 14 minutes), and intensity of daily bouts of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (4.1, 4.3, 3.9 METs) (all, P > .1). Median accumulated daily time spent doing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity was also similar (40, 37, 36 minutes; P > .8). Those with DFU had more mean accumulated daily time spent doing sedentary-intensity activity (796 minutes) compared to DPN (720 minutes; P < .05), but not compared to DM (728 minutes; P < .08). DFU subgroups with minor amputations had more median accumulated daily time spent doing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (66, 28 minutes; P < .05) and less mean time doing sedentary-intensity activity (745, 837; P < .05) than those without amputations.

CONCLUSIONS

People with DFU performed similar low numbers of daily bouts of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity to controls, but spend more time doing sedentary-intensity activities. Interventions that gradually increase the moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity in people with DFU should be investigated.

Factors associated with type of footwear worn inside the house: a cross-sectional study

Background

In specific populations, including those at risk of falls or foot ulcers, indoor footwear is an important aspect of preventative care. This study aims to describe the indoor footwear worn most over the previous year in a sample representative of the Australian inpatient population, and to explore the sociodemographic, medical, foot condition and foot treatment history factors associated with the indoor footwear worn.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data collected from inpatients admitted to five hospitals across Queensland, Australia. Sociodemographic information, medical history, foot conditions and foot treatment history were collected as explanatory variables. Outcomes included the self-reported type of indoor footwear (from 16 standard footwear types) worn most in the year prior to hospitalisation, and the category in which the self-reported footwear type was defined according to its features: 'protective', 'non-protective' and 'no footwear'. Multivariate analyses determined explanatory variables independently associated with each type and category.

Results

Protective footwear was worn by 11% of participants (including 4% walking shoes, 4% running shoes, 2% oxford shoes), and was independently associated with education above year 10 level (OR 1.78, p = 0.028) and having had foot treatment by a specialist physician (5.06, p = 0.003). Most participants (55%) wore non-protective footwear (including 21% slippers, 15% thongs/flip flops, 7% backless slippers), which was associated with older age (1.03, p < 0.001). No footwear was worn by 34% of participants (30% barefoot, 3% socks only). Those of older age (0.97, p < 0.001) and those in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic group (0.55, p = 0.019) were less likely to wear no footwear (socks or barefoot).

Conclusions

Only one in nine people in a large representative inpatient population wore a protective indoor footwear most of the time in the previous year. Whilst having education levels above year 10 and having received previous foot treatment by a specialist physician were associated with wearing protective footwear indoors, the presence of a range of other medical and foot conditions were not. These findings provide information to enable clinicians, researchers and policymakers to develop interventions aimed at improving indoor footwear habits that may help prevent significant health burdens such as falls and foot ulcers.

Reasons for (non-)adherence to self-care in people with a diabetic foot ulcer

We aimed to explore reasons for (non-)adherence to self-care among people with diabetic foot ulcers, as well as barriers and solutions to improving their self-care adherence. We performed a qualitative study, recruiting people with a diabetic foot ulcer from a community diabetic foot clinic. Semistructured interviews were held with participants. Data saturation occurred after 9 and was confirmed after 11 participant interviews. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the framework approach. Findings were mapped and the World Health Organization's (WHO) adherence dimensions were applied to themes identified. The key themes identified were (1) participants performed recommended practices in self-care; (2) participants relied heavily on care support; (3) motivations for self-care came from "staying well"; and (4) there was a disparity between self-care knowledge and understanding. Barriers identified included poor mobility and visibility, difficulty wearing offloading devices or using wound dressings, and frustration with lack of progress. Solutions to improve adherence included integrating self-care as routine, improved education, more external help and improving visibility. All five WHO adherence dimensions played a role in (non-)adherence to diabetic foot ulcer self-care. We conclude that adherence to recommended diabetic foot ulcer self-care was limited at best, and reasons for nonadherence were multidimensional. Based on the factors related to (non-)adherence and the barriers and solutions described, we suggest clinicians obtain a broad view of a person's situation when aiming to improve self-care adherence.

Factors associated with wearing inadequate outdoor footwear in populations at risk of foot ulceration: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated if people at risk of foot ulceration actually wear the footwear recommended by best practice guidelines to prevent foot ulceration. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, wearing inadequate outdoor footwear in those with diabetes or peripheral neuropathy in an inpatient population.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a multi-site cross-sectional study investigating foot conditions in a large representative inpatient population admitted into hospital for any medical reason on one day. A range of explanatory variables were collected from all participants including sociodemographic, medical and foot condition factors. The outcome variable for this study was the self-reported outdoor footwear type worn most by participants outside the house in the year prior to hospitalisation. The self-reported footwear type was then categorised into adequate and inadequate according to footwear features recommended in guidelines for populations at risk of foot ulceration. Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with inadequate footwear in all inpatient participants, and diabetes and neuropathy subgroups.

RESULTS

Overall, 47% of a total of 726 inpatients wore inadequate outdoor footwear; 49% of the 171 in the diabetes subgroup and 43% of 159 in the neuropathy subgroup. Wearing inadequate outdoor footwear was independently associated (Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)) with being female in the diabetes (2.7 (1.4-5.2)) and neuropathy subgroups (3.7 (1.8-7.9)) and being female (5.1 (3.7-7.1)), having critical peripheral arterial disease (2.5 (1.1-5.9)) and an amputation (0.3 (0.1-0.7)) in all inpatients (all, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of all inpatients at risk of foot ulceration reported wearing outdoor footwear most of the time that did not meet recommendations for prevention. We found women were much more likely to wear inadequate footwear. More work needs to be done to increase the uptake of footwear recommendations in these populations to prevent foot ulceration.

Independent factors associated with wearing different types of outdoor footwear in a representative inpatient population: a cross-sectional study

Background

Footwear can have both a positive and negative impact on lower limb health and mobility across the lifespan, influencing the risk of foot pain, ulceration, and falls in those at risk. Choice of footwear can be influenced by disease as well as sociocultural factors, yet few studies have investigated the types of footwear people wear and the profiles of those who wear them. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with outdoor footwear type worn most often in a representative inpatient population.

Methods

This study was a secondary data analysis of a cohort of 733 inpatients that is highly representative of developed nations’ hospitalised populations; 62 ± 19 years, 55.8% male, and 23.5% diabetes. Socio-demographic, medical history, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, foot deformity, foot ulcer history, amputation history and past foot treatment variables were collected. Participants selected the footwear type they mostly wore outside the house in the previous year from 16 types of footwear. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent factors associated with outdoor footwear types selected.

Results

The most common outdoor footwear types were: running shoes (20%), thongs/flip flops (14%), walking shoes (14%), sandals (13%) and boots (11%). Several socio-demographic, medical history and foot-related factors were independently associated (Odds Ratio; 95% Confidence Interval)) with different types of footwear. Running shoes were associated with male sex (2.7; 1.8–4.1); thongs with younger age (0.95 for each year; 0.94–0.97), being female (2.0; 1.2–3.1) and socio-economic status (3.1; 1.2–7.6); walking shoes with arthritis (1.9; 1.2–3.0); sandals with female sex (3.8; 2.3–6.2); boots with male sex (9.7; 4.3–21.6) and inner regional (2.6; 1.3–5.1) and remote (3.4; 1.2–9.5) residence (all, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

We profiled the types of outdoor footwear worn most in a large diverse inpatient population and the factors associated with wearing them. Sex was the most consistent factor associated with outdoor footwear type. Females were more likely to wear thongs and sandals and males boots and running shoes. Overall, this data gives insights into the socio-demographic, medical and other health factors that are related to footwear choice in a large diverse population primarily of older age.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-018-0260-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The validity and reliability of remote diabetic foot ulcer assessment using mobile phone images

Despite their potential for telemedicine in diabetic foot ulcer treatment, diagnostic accuracy of assessment of diabetic foot ulcers using mobile phone images is unknown. Our aim was to determine the validity and reliability of remote diabetic foot ulcer assessment using mobile phone images. Fifty diabetic foot ulcers were assessed live and photographed. Five independent observers remotely assessed the mobile phone images twice for presence of nine clinical characteristics and three treatment decisions. Positive likelihood (LLR+) and negative likelihood (LLR−) ratios were calculated for validity. Multirater Randolph’s and bi-rater Bennet kappa values were calculated for reliability. LLR+ ranged from 1.3–4.2; LLR− ranged from 0.13–0.88; the treatment decision ‘peri-wound debridement’ was the only item with ‘strong diagnostic evidence’. Inter-observer reliability kappa ranged from 0.09–0.71; test-retest reliability from 0.45–0.86; the treatment decision ‘peri-wound debridement’ was the only item with ‘adequate agreement’. In conclusion, mobile phone images had low validity and reliability for remote assessment of diabetic foot ulcers and should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic instrument. Clinicians who use mobile phone images in clinical practice should obtain as much additional information as possible when making treatment decisions based on these images, and be cautious of the low diagnostic accuracy.

Differences in the daily activity of patients with diabetic foot ulcers compared to controls in their free-living environments

The aims of our study were to investigate multiple daily activity outcomes in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) compared to diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and diabetes (DM) controls in their free-living environments. We examined daily activity outcomes of 30 patients with DFU, 23 DPN and 20 DM. All patients wore a validated multi-sensor device for > 5 days (>22 hours per day) to measure their daily activity outcomes: steps, energy expenditure (kJ), average metabolic equivalent tasks (METs), physical activity (>3·0 METs) duration and energy expenditure, lying duration, sleep duration and sleep quality. We found that DFU patients recorded fewer median (interquartile ranges, IQR) daily steps [2154 (1621-4324)] than DPN [3660 (2742-7705)] and DM [5102 (4011-7408)] controls (P < 0·05). In contrast, DFU patients recorded more mean ± SD daily energy expenditure (kJ) (13 006 ± 3559) than DPN (11 085 ± 1876) and DM (11 491 ± 1559) controls (P < 0·05). We found no other differences in daily activity outcomes (P > 0·1). We conclude that DFU patients typically take fewer steps but expend more energy during their normal daily activity than DPN and DM controls. We hypothesise that the increased energy expenditure for DFU patients may be due to wound healing or an inefficient gait strategy. Further investigations into this energy imbalance in DFU patients may improve healing in future.

Incidence and risk factors for developing infection in patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of research on patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) that go on to develop infection. We aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for developing infection in a large regional cohort of patients presenting with uninfected DFUs.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data collected from a validated prospective state-wide clinical diabetic foot database in Queensland (Australia). Patients presenting for their first visit with an uninfected DFU to a Diabetic Foot Service in one of thirteen Queensland regions between January 2012 and December 2013 were included. Socio-demographic, medical history, foot disease history, DFU characteristics and treatment variables were captured at the first visit. Patients were followed until their DFU healed, or if their DFU did not heal for 12-months, to determine if they developed a foot infection in that period.

RESULTS

Overall, 853 patients were included; mean(standard deviation) age 62.9(12.8) years, 68.0% male, 90.9% type 2 diabetes, 13.6% indigenous Australians. Foot infection developed in 342 patients for an overall incidence of 40.1%; 32.4% incidence in DFUs healed <3 months, 55.9% in DFUs healed between 3-12 months (p<0.05). Independent risk factors (Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)) for developing infection were: DFUs healed between 3-12 months (2.3 (1.6-3.3)), deep DFUs (2.2 (1.2-3.9)), peripheral neuropathy (1.8 (1.1-2.9)), previous DFU history (1.7 (1.2-2.4)), foot deformity (1.4 (1.0-2.0)), female gender (1.5 (1.1-2.1)) and years of age (0.98 (0.97-0.99)) (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients presenting with an uninfected DFU will develop an infection prior to healing. To prevent infection clinicians treating patients with uninfected DFUs should be particularly vigilant with those presenting with deep DFUs, previous DFU history, peripheral neuropathy, foot deformity, younger age, female gender and DFUs that have not healed by 3 months after presentation.

Foot Complications in a Representative Australian Inpatient Population

We investigated the prevalence and factors independently associated with foot complications in a representative inpatient population (adults admitted for any reason with and without diabetes). We analysed data from the Foot disease in inpatients study, a sample of 733 representative inpatients. Previous amputation, previous foot ulceration, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), and foot deformity were the foot complications assessed. Sociodemographic, medical, and foot treatment history were collected. Overall, 46.0% had a foot complication with 23.9% having multiple; those with diabetes had higher prevalence of foot complications than those without diabetes (p < 0.01). Previous amputation (4.1%) was independently associated with previous foot ulceration, foot deformity, cerebrovascular accident, and past surgeon treatment (p < 0.01). Previous foot ulceration (9.8%) was associated with PN, PAD, past podiatry, and past nurse treatment (p < 0.02). PAD (21.0%) was associated with older age, males, indigenous people, cancer, PN, and past surgeon treatment (p < 0.02). PN (22.0%) was associated with older age, diabetes, mobility impairment, and PAD (p < 0.05). Foot deformity (22.4%) was associated with older age, mobility impairment, past podiatry treatment, and PN (p < 0.01). Nearly half of all inpatients had a foot complication. Those with foot complications were older, male, indigenous, had diabetes, cerebrovascular accident, mobility impairment, and other foot complications or past foot treatment.

The silent overall burden of foot disease in a representative hospitalised population

The aims of this study were to investigate the point prevalence, and associated independent factors, for foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) in a representative hospitalised population. We included 733 (83%) of 883 eligible adult inpatients across five representative Australian hospitals on one day. We collected an extensive range of self-reported characteristics from participants. We examined all participants to clinically diagnose foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) and amputation procedures. Overall, 72 participants (9·8%) [95% confidence interval (CI):7·2-11·3%] had foot disease. Foot ulcers, in 49 participants (6·7%), were independently associated with peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·05). Foot infections, in 24 (3·3%), were independently associated with previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Ischaemia, in 33 (4·5%), was independently associated with older age, smokers and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Amputation procedures, in 14 (1·9%), were independently associated with foot infections (P < 0·01). We found that one in every ten inpatients had foot disease, and less than half of those had diabetes. After adjusting for diabetes, factors linked with foot disease were similar to those identified in diabetes-related literature. The overall inpatient foot disease burden is similar in size to well-known medical conditions and should receive similar attention.

Direct inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions: a multisite point-prevalence study

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this point-prevalence study were to investigate a representative inpatient population to determine the prevalence of people admitted to hospital for the reason of a foot-related condition, and identify associated independent factors.

METHODS

Participants were adult inpatients in 5 different representative hospitals, admitted for any reason on the day of data collection. Maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired inpatients were excluded. Participants were surveyed on a range of self-reported demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot disease history, self-care, footwear, past foot treatment prior to hospitalisation and reason for admission variables. Physical examinations were performed to clinically diagnose a range of foot disease and foot risk factor variables. Independent factors associated with being admitted to hospital for the primary or secondary reason of a foot-related condition were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 733 participants were included; mean (SD) age 62 (19) years, male 55.8%. Foot-related conditions were the primary reason for admission in 54 participants (7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.5%)); 36 for foot disease (4.9%), 15 foot trauma (2.1%). Being admitted for the primary reason of a foot-related condition was independently associated with foot infection, critical peripheral arterial disease, foot trauma and past foot treatment by a general practitioner and surgeon (p<0.01). Foot-related conditions were a secondary reason for admission in 28 participants (3.8% (2.6% to 5.6%)), and were independently associated with diabetes and current foot ulcer (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first in a representative inpatient population, suggests the direct inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions is significantly higher than previously appreciated. Findings indicate 1 in every 13 inpatients was primarily admitted because of a foot-related condition with most due to foot disease or foot trauma. Future strategies are recommended to investigate and intervene in the considerable inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions.

Prevalence of active foot disease and foot disease risk factors in a subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility: a cross-sectional prevalence study

BACKGROUND

Australian subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities face significant challenges from the ageing population and the increasing burden of chronic disease. Foot disease complications are a negative consequence of many chronic diseases. With the rapid expansion of subacute rehabilitation inpatient services, it seems imperative to investigate the prevalence of foot disease and foot disease risk factors in this population. The primary aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of active foot disease and foot disease risk factors in a subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility.

METHODS

Eligible participants were all adults admitted at least overnight into a large Australian subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility over two different four week periods. Consenting participants underwent a short non-invasive foot examination by a podiatrist utilising the validated Queensland Health High Risk Foot Form to collect data on age, sex, medical co-morbidity history, foot disease risk factor history and clinically diagnosed foot disease complications and foot disease risk factors. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the prevalence of clinically diagnosed foot disease complications, foot disease risk factors and groups of foot disease risk factors. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate any associations between defined explanatory variables and appropriate foot disease outcome variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 85 (88%) of 97 people admitted to the facility during the study periods consented; mean age 80 (±9) years and 71% were female. The prevalence (95% confidence interval) of participants with active foot disease was 11.8% (6.3 - 20.5), 32.9% (23.9 - 43.5) had multiple foot disease risk factors, and overall, 56.5% (45.9 - 66.5) had at least one foot disease risk factor. A self-reported history of peripheral neuropathy diagnosis was independently associated with having multiple foot disease risk factors (OR 13.504, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the potential significance of the burden of foot disease in subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities. One in eight subacute inpatients were admitted with active foot disease and one in two with at least one foot disease risk factor in this study. It is recommended that further multi-site studies and management guidelines are required to address the foot disease burden in subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities.