Podiatric physicians' perspectives on their role in promoting self-care in high-risk patients with diabetes

Foot Care Prioritization Among Health Care Providers Treating Diabetic Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Survey-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is a significant complication associated with diabetes, characterized by the potential for progressive amputation of specific foot segments or the entire lower limb in the absence of timely identification of infection and intervention. The aim of our research is to evaluate the degree of importance given to foot care by healthcare professionals who are responsible for treating individuals with diabetes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized an online survey previously validated in Australia. The mean foot care prioritization score was used to identify the dummy variable for binary logistic regression analysis, which was used to identify predictors of foot care prioritization.

RESULTS

A total of 222 participants were involved in this study. Assessing for the risk of developing foot complications, visually inspecting feet for wounds, and providing or recommending footwear to prevent foot complications were the most commonly reported practices, accounting for 80.60% (n = 178), 76.10% (n = 169), and 75.20% (n = 167), respectively. The most commonly referred patients to a specialist tertiary multi-disciplinary foot care team were patients with ulcers in patients with absent foot pulses, ulcers with ascending cellulitis, and diabetic ulceration, accounting for 73.50% (n = 163), 71.60% (n = 159), and 66.70% (n = 148), respectively. The mean foot care prioritization score for the study participants was 54.1 (standard deviation: 11.7) out of 78 (69.4%), which demonstrates a moderately high level of foot care prioritization. Binary logistic regression analysis identified that healthcare professionals who are aged 35-44 years, those who have 5-10 years of experience, those who work at private hospitals, those who have a higher number of practice clinics per week, and those who have to manage a higher number of patients with diabetes in each clinic were more likely to prioritize foot care in their practices (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study found that healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia place a moderate degree of emphasis on foot care. Healthcare professionals falling within the age range of 35-44 years, possessing 5-10 years of experience, employed at private hospitals, overseeing a greater number of practice clinics weekly, and managing a greater number of patients with diabetes per clinic exhibited a greater propensity to prioritize foot care within their respective practices. Policymakers should consider the integration of continuous glucose monitoring technologies, the establishment of standardized foot screening protocols, and the implementation of targeted educational programs for healthcare professionals.

Screening behaviors for diabetic foot risk and their influencing factors among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Changsha, China

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot is a serious complication of diabetes with a high disability and mortality rate, which can be prevented by early screening. General practitioners play an essential role in diabetic foot risk screening, yet the screening behaviors of general practitioners have rarely been studied in primary care settings. This study aimed to investigate foot risk screening behaviors and analyze their influencing factors among general practitioners.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 844 general practitioners from 78 community health centers in Changsha, China. A self-designed and validated questionnaire was used to assess the general practitioner's cognition, attitude, and behaviors on performing diabetic foot risk screening. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to investigate the influencing factors of risk screening behaviors.

RESULTS

The average score of diabetic foot risk screening behaviors among the general practitioners was 61.53 ± 14.69, and 271 (32.1%) always or frequently performed foot risk screening for diabetic patients. Higher training frequency (β = 3.197, p < 0.001), higher screening cognition (β = 2.947, p < 0.001), and more positive screening attitude (β = 4.564, p < 0.001) were associated with more diabetic foot risk screening behaviors, while limited time and energy (β=-5.184, p < 0.001) and lack of screening tools (β=-6.226, p < 0.001) were associated with fewer diabetic foot screening behaviors.

CONCLUSION

The score of risk screening behaviors for the diabetic foot of general practitioners in Changsha was at a medium level. General practitioners' diabetic foot risk screening behaviors may be improved through strengthening training on relevant guidelines and evidence-based screening techniques, improving cognition and attitude towards foot risk screening among general practitioners, provision of more general practitioners or nurse practitioners, and user-friendly screening tools.

Prioritisation of diabetes-related footcare amongst primary care healthcare professionals

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess primary healthcare professionals' priority for managing diabetic foot disease (DFD) over the progressive course of the condition compared to other aspects of diabetes care.

BACKGROUND

DFD affects up to 60 million people globally. Evidence suggests that comprehensive preventative footcare may reduce serious complications of DFD, such as amputation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional quantitative study reported according to STROBE statement.

METHODS

General Practitioners (GPs) and Credentialled Diabetes Educators (CDEs) working within Australian primary care were invited to complete an online survey, to obtain information about preventative and early intervention footcare priorities and practices. Ten GPs and 84 CDEs completed the survey.

RESULTS

On diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) review was identified to be one of the top three priorities of care by 57 (61%) of participants whilst at 20-year history of diabetes 73 (78%) participants indicated its priority. Foot assessments became a priority for 78% (n = 73) of participants and podiatry referrals a priority for 53% (n = 50) of participants only when a "foot concern" was raised. Referrals to specialist high-risk foot podiatrists or services were a first priority for 56% (n = 53), when the person had significant amputation risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes-related preventative footcare assessments and management remain a low priority amongst primary healthcare professionals. Preventative care for asymptomatic complications, such as DFD, may be overlooked in favour of monitoring HbA1c or medication management. Limited prioritisation of footcare in primary care is concerning given the risks for amputation associated with DFD.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study reveals the need for primary healthcare decision makers and clinicians to ensure preventative footcare is a focused priority earlier in the diabetes care continuum. Collaborative and widespread promotion of the importance of proactive rather than reactive footcare practices is required to support prevention of foot ulcers and amputation.

Survey research in podiatric medicine: An analysis of the reporting of response rates and non-response bias

BACKGROUND

Survey research is common practice in podiatry literature and many other health-related fields. An important component of the reporting of survey results is the provision of sufficient information to permit readers to understand the validity and representativeness of the results presented. However, the quality of survey reporting measures in the body of podiatry literature has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reporting of response rates and nonresponse bias within survey research articles published in the podiatric literature in order to provide a foundation with regard to the development of appropriate research reporting standards within the profession.

METHODS

This study reports on a secondary analysis of survey research published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, the Foot, and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 98 surveys published from 2000 to 2018 were reviewed and data abstracted regarding the report of response rates and non-response bias.

RESULTS

67 surveys (68.4%) report a response rate while only 36 articles (36.7%) mention non-response bias in any capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that there is room for improvement in the quality of reporting response rates and nonresponse in the body of podiatric literature involving survey research. Both nonresponse and response rate should be reported to assess survey quality. This is particularly problematic for studies that contribute to best practices.

Barriers and enablers to delivering preventative and early intervention footcare to people with diabetes: a scoping review of healthcare professionals' perceptions

The aim of this study is to examine barriers and enablers to delivering preventative and early intervention footcare to people with diabetes, from the perspective of healthcare professionals within primary care. MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases, as well as Google Scholar, were searched in September 2018. Inclusion criteria included: English language, qualitative and quantitative studies, since 1998, reporting on barriers or enablers, as reported by primary care health professionals, to delivering preventative or early intervention footcare to people with diabetes. In total, 339 studies were screened. Eight studies met criteria. Perceived barriers to providing footcare included: geographical, administrative and communication factors; referral and care guideline availability and implementation challenges; limited availability of specialists and high-risk foot services; and limited resources including time and funding. Enablers to footcare were: implementation of footcare programs; education; clear definition of staff roles; development of foot assessment reminder systems; and reminders for people with diabetes to remove their shoes at appointments. Barriers and enablers to footcare are multifaceted. Healthcare professionals are affected by health system and individual factors. By implementing strategies to address barriers to footcare delivery, it is possible to improve outcomes for people with diabetes, thus reducing the effect of diabetes-related foot disease.

Exploring Diabetic Foot Exam Performance in a Specialty Clinic

Detection of diabetic foot complications is key to amputation prevention. This study used survey and retrospective record review to examine the relationship between frequency and performance of clinician's diabetic foot examinations on performance of patient home self-foot examinations. An additional aim was to assess clinician performance of annual foot examination per American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines in a specialty clinic. The relationships between demographic characteristics, diabetic foot ulcer beliefs, health literacy, HbA1c level, and foot self-exam performance was also examined. No relationship was found between the performance frequency of foot examinations by providers and patient self-examination ( N = 88). The presence of specific barriers to self-management was significantly higher in those patients who did not complete daily home self-foot examinations. Only 16% of patients' charts reviewed met the ADA criteria for a complete annual foot exam. Motivational interviewing during patient visits could be a strategy to break down barriers to self-foot exam performance. Furthermore, the development of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR)-based diabetic foot exam template to improve provider documentation may improve compliance with ADA recommendations.