The assessment and management of diabetes related lower limb problems in India-an action research approach to integrating best practice

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.

Patient-perceived and practitioner-perceived barriers to accessing foot care services for people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Foot-related complications are common in people with diabetes mellitus, however foot care services are underutilized by this population. This research aimed to systematically review the literature to identify patient and practitioner-perceived barriers to accessing foot care services for people with diabetes.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were used to inform the data collection and extraction methods. CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases were searched in March 2022 to identify original research articles that reported on barriers to accessing diabetes foot care services from the patient and/or practitioner perspective. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool for qualitative/mixed methods studies or the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) tool for quantitative studies. Following data extraction, content analysis was used to identify reported barriers. Themes and subthemes were presented separately for patient-perspectives and practitioner-perspectives. A narrative summary was used to synthesize the findings from the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included. The majority of CASP and NHLBI criteria were met by most studies, indicating good overall methodological quality. Three predominant themes emerged from the patient perspective that represented barriers to accessing foot care services: lack of understanding, socioeconomic factors, and lack of service availability. Four themes emerged from the practitioner perspective: poor interprofessional communication, lack of resources, lack of practitioner knowledge, and perceived patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified a number of barriers to accessing foot care services from both the patient and practitioner perspectives. Although patients focused predominantly on patient-level factors, while practitioners focused on barriers related to the health care system, there was some overlap between them. This emphasizes the importance of recognising both perspectives for the future integration of policy changes and access facilitators that may help to overcome these barriers.

Association of glycaemic status and outcomes in diabetic foot problems: a retrospective evidence from South India

OBJECTIVES

Emerging shreds of evidence indicates that the risk of diabetic foot ulcer and associated morbidity can be reduced through the intensive glycemic control. There are very few studies which assessed the effects of glycemic control on diabetic foot problems among Indian patients. We aimed to assess the effect of glycemic control on the outcomes of diabetic foot problems among adult type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients with foot ulcers.

METHODS

A cross sectional study was conducted among the T2DM patients from a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India. The demographic characters, risk factors, treatment characters, glycemic status were collected among the patients and analyzed against the outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers by reviewing their medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. The Chi-square test and ANOVA were used for was used for the categorical variables and continuous parameters to identify the factors affecting the outcomes, respectively. All analysis was performed in SPSS v21.

RESULTS

Out of the 100 participants included in the study, 70% were male. The majority (78%) were from an age group of 40 to 70 years, and the mean age was found to be 59.91 ± 10.6 years. The mean duration of diabetes was 9.66 years. Only ankle-brachial Index score (p=0.001) was significantly associated with the type of ulcers, whereas other factors not (p>0.05). A high level of average HbA_1c, BMI, ABI index and poor glycemic status was associated with a significant debridement strategy and longer duration of hospitalization; however, it was not substantial.

CONCLUSION

Our study inferred that poor glycemic status is associated with a significant debridement strategy and longer duration of hospitalization. However, these findings need to be strengthened with adequately powered prospective studies.

Barriers and enablers to providing preventative and early intervention diabetes-related foot care: a qualitative study of primary care healthcare professionals' perceptions

This study explored the perceived healthcare system and process barriers and enablers experienced by GPs and Credentialled Diabetes Educators (CDEs) in Australian primary care, in the delivery of preventative and early intervention foot care to people with diabetes. A qualitative design with inductive analysis approach was utilised and reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two GPs and 14 CDEs from rural, urban and metropolitan areas of Australia. Participants were from New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. Barriers to providing foot care constituted five broad themes: (1) lack of access to footcare specialists and services; (2) education and training insufficiencies; (3) human and physical resource limitations related to funding inadequacies; (4) poor care integration such as inadequate communication and feedback across services and disciplines, and ineffectual multidisciplinary care; and (5) deficient footcare processes and guidelines including ambiguous referral pathways. Enablers to foot care were found at opposing ends of the same spectra as the identified barriers or were related to engaging in mentorship programs and utilising standardised assessment tools. This is the first Australian study to obtain information from GPs and CDEs about the perceived barriers and enablers influencing preventative and early intervention diabetes-related foot care. Findings offer an opportunity for the development and translation of effective intervention strategies across health systems, policy, funding, curriculum and clinical practice, in order to improve outcomes for people with diabetes.

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.

Increasing identification of foot at risk of complications in patients with diabetes: a quality improvement project in an urban primary health centre in India

The majority of foot amputations are preventable in people with diabetes. Guidelines recommend that people with diabetes should receive a foot examination for risk assessment, at least annually. In an audit at a primary health centre (PHC) in Mumbai, India, no patient with diabetes was offered preventive foot assessment in preceding 12 months. Problem analysis identified a lack of clinic policy, training and equipment for foot assessment. There was no standardised referral pathway for patients identified with foot at risk of diabetes complications. Furthermore, limited data review, high patient volumes and little time available with healthcare providers were important constraints. A quality improvement project was carried out at the PHC from January to September 2017. The project aimed at increasing compliance to standardised foot assessment in patients with diabetes presenting to the PHC from a baseline of 0% to 100% over 6 months. This would help identify patients having a foot at risk of complications due to diabetes. The Quality Standard on foot assessment was adopted from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Diabetic Foot Guideline. The electronic medical record (EMR) was standardised, health providers were trained, PHC processes and referral pathways were redesigned. Plan-Do-Study-Act was used to address barriers with weekly data review. 88.2% (848) of patients with diabetes visiting the PHC during the study period received a foot examination. Out of these, 11% (95) were identified to have a foot at risk and referred to a specialist foot centre. 57% of referred patients followed with specialised foot protection services. Training of healthcare providers, standardisation of processes and regular data feedback can improve diabetic foot care. Integrating quality indicators in the EMR helps monitor compliance. The inability to use doctor's time efficiently was the biggest challenge and sustaining the change will require organisational changes with suitable task shifting.

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.

An action research approach to facilitating the adoption of a foot health assessment tool in India

Background

India has a diabetes population that is growing and alongside this, the incidence of limb threatening foot problems is increasing. Foot health care provision does not yet meet this demand. In one locality in India, clinicians had an unstructured approach to foot health assessments resulting in poor adoption of evidence based guidelines from the West and a persistence of serious foot complications. There was the perception that existing assessment tools did not take into account the local cultural, organizational and professional needs and there was a lack of ownership of any potential solution to the problem. Therefore, the aim of this work was to facilitate the ownership and development of a foot health assessment tool for use in the Indian context. In order to achieve this an action research approach was chosen.

Methods

Participants were facilitated through the action and implementation phases of the action research cycle by the researchers. The action phase included generating a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool from a review of the literature to provide an evidence based foundation for the foot health assessment tool. A modified Delphi method was used to further refine the contents of the tool. Members of the Delphi Panel (n = 8) were experts in their field of medicine and experts in delivering health care within services in India.

Results

The outcome of the study was the adoption of a locally developed foot health assessment tool (Salford Indian Foot Health Assessment Tool, SIFT). It contains thirteen sections, which reflect the risk factors identified for assessing foot health agreed by the participants to fit the Indian context. The SIFT is supported with evidence based guidelines from the West and a training program was delivered by the researchers in order to support its implementation into clinical practice.

Conclusion

An action research approach has facilitated the development and implementation of a locally created and owned foot health assessment tool. This in turn has resulted in the integration of evidence-based guidelines from the West with consideration to local cultural, organizational and professional needs and ultimately the needs of their patients. Further work is underway evaluating the outcomes of the SIFT in practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13047-015-0108-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.