The analysis for time of referral to a medical center among patients with diabetic foot infection

Identification, influencing factors and outcomes of time delays in the management pathway of diabetic foot: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the time delays in the management of diabetic foot and explore influencing factors of these delays and potential outcomes.

METHODS

The researchers searched several electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang, CBM and VIP) for English and Chinese studies that examined time delays in the management pathway of diabetic foot. Two authors independently screened and extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Health Research and Quality checklist. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The review included 28 articles, comprising 20 cohort studies and 8 cross-sectional studies, that met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 14 were deemed of high quality. The median times from symptom onset to primary health care or specialist care varied from 3 to 46.69 days. The median delay in referral by primary care specialists ranged from 7 to 31 days, and subsequent median times to definitive treatment ranged from 6.2 to 56 days. Multiple complex factors were found to contribute to these delays, including patient demographics (older age, lower education level and income level) and poor patient health-seeking behaviors (inaccurate self-treatment, incorrect recognition and interpretation of symptoms), inaccurate assessment or initial treatment by health primary professionals, complex referral pathways and clinical characteristics of diabetic foot (number of foot ulcers, Wagner grade scale, and hemoglobin A1c index). Negative outcomes associated with these delays included increased risk of major amputation and mortality, decreased wound healing rate, prolonged hospital stay, and increased hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Time delays in the diabetic foot management pathway were both common and serious, contributing to negative health outcomes for patients with diabetic foot. Many complex factors related to patient's poor patient health-seeking behaviors, health system, and clinical characteristics of diabetic foot are responsible for these delays. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new strategies for standard referral practices and strengthen patient awareness of seeking care.

Are current wound classifications valid for predicting prognosis in people treated for limb-threatening diabetic foot ulcers?

This study aims to investigate whether the current wound classifications were valid for the treatment prognosis of subjects treated for limb-threatening diabetic foot ulcers (LTDFU). A total of 1548 patients with LTDFU and infection were studied, with wounds recorded using the Wagner, Texas, PEDIS and WIfI classifications while major lower extremity amputations (LEAs) or in-hospital mortality incidences were defined as poor outcomes. Among them, 153 (9.9%) patients received major LEAs and 38 (2.5%) patients died. After adjustments, the Wagner classification and Texas stage as well as clinical factors such as comorbidity with major adverse cardiac events (MACE), being under dialysis and having serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin were independent factors for prognosis. For patients without dialysis, Wagner and Texas stage stood out independently for prognosis. For patients on dialysis, only levels of CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2 in Wagner, OR = 2.0 in WIfI, OR = 2.2 in Texas, OR = 2.3 in PEDIS) and albumin (OR = 0.4 in four classifications) were valid predictors. The Wagner system and Texas stage were valid for predicting prognosis in treatment for LTDFUs, suggesting a role of vascular perfusion. MACE history, levels of CRP and albumin level should assist in prediction; more significantly, only levels of CRP and albumin appeared valid for those subjects undergoing dialysis.

Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review

Importance

Approximately 18.6 million people worldwide are affected by a diabetic foot ulcer each year, including 1.6 million people in the United States. These ulcers precede 80% of lower extremity amputations among people diagnosed with diabetes and are associated with an increased risk of death.

Observations

Neurological, vascular, and biomechanical factors contribute to diabetic foot ulceration. Approximately 50% to 60% of ulcers become infected, and about 20% of moderate to severe infections lead to lower extremity amputations. The 5-year mortality rate for individuals with a diabetic foot ulcer is approximately 30%, exceeding 70% for those with a major amputation. The mortality rate for people with diabetic foot ulcers is 231 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with 182 deaths per 1000 person-years in people with diabetes without foot ulcers. People who are Black, Hispanic, or Native American and people with low socioeconomic status have higher rates of diabetic foot ulcer and subsequent amputation compared with White people. Classifying ulcers based on the degree of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection can help identify risk of limb-threatening disease. Several interventions reduce risk of ulcers compared with usual care, such as pressure-relieving footwear (13.3% vs 25.4%; relative risk, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.84), foot skin measurements with off-loading when hot spots (ie, greater than 2 °C difference between the affected foot and the unaffected foot) are found (18.7% vs 30.8%; relative risk, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.84), and treatment of preulcer signs. Surgical debridement, reducing pressure from weight bearing on the ulcer, and treating lower extremity ischemia and foot infection are first-line therapies for diabetic foot ulcers. Randomized clinical trials support treatments to accelerate wound healing and culture-directed oral antibiotics for localized osteomyelitis. Multidisciplinary care, typically consisting of podiatrists, infectious disease specialists, and vascular surgeons, in close collaboration with primary care clinicians, is associated with lower major amputation rates relative to usual care (3.2% vs 4.4%; odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32-0.51). Approximately 30% to 40% of diabetic foot ulcers heal at 12 weeks, and recurrence after healing is estimated to be 42% at 1 year and 65% at 5 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide each year and are associated with increased rates of amputation and death. Surgical debridement, reducing pressure from weight bearing, treating lower extremity ischemia and foot infection, and early referral for multidisciplinary care are first-line therapies for diabetic foot ulcers.

Healico-a wound care assistant in your pocket

Non-optimal wound management and late referral to specialised units negatively impacts patient prognosis and quality of life, as well as healthcare costs. Healico is a new mobile application (app), created in the wound care field, in response to the challenges and difficulties encountered by health professionals (HPs) who deal with patients with wounds on a daily basis. This article aims to describe how this new app was developed, how it works, as well as the real-life clinical benefits and evidence supporting its use. The Healico App assists nurses, physicians and other HPs by: supporting a holistic approach to patient management; facilitating wound assessment and documentation, irrespective of where care is provided (primary, specialised or hospital services, in either public or private institutions); and supporting consistent and safe clinical practice, as well as reducing variation in care. It also provides a fast, fluid and secure communication channel, and effective coordination between HPs, supporting early interventions. The app has also been shown to improve therapeutic adherence of patients by promoting inclusive dialogue with them.

Diabetic foot disease in subjects with End-stage renal Disease: A nationwide study over 14 years highlighting an emerging threat

AIMS

To disclose prevalence, demographic, foot characteristics as well as management and lower-extremity amputations (LEAs) of subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on diabetic foot diseases (DFDs).

METHODS

Data were derived from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database between 2004 and 2017. DFDs were defined as ulcers, infections, or severe peripheral arterial diseases (PADs) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical characteristics were analyzed between subjects with and without ESRD.

RESULTS

Subjects with ESRD have increased impacts on the DFD population either from annual prevalence (2.7 % to 10.42 %, P for trend < 0.001), or proportional representation in LEAs (7.91 % to 26.37 %, P < 0.001) over 14 years. The annual trends for major-LEAs rates have decreased in both subjects with and without ESRD (13.67 % to 5.82 % and 3.48 % to 1.47 %, both P < 0.001). Notably, the concomitant increase of endovascular treatments (EVTs) (7.09 % to 29.41 %, P < 0.001) was associated with the decrease of major-LEAs (P for interaction < 0.001) in subjects with ESRD.

CONCLUSIONS

As the annual prevalence of subjects with ESRD has increased 3.9-fold over years, they now account for more than 30% of annual major-LEA of the total DFD population. Interdisciplinary team approach and aggressive EVTs might reduce major-LEAs in these patients.

Podiatric care from diabetologists point of view

Scoring for the risk of Diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) should be performed regularly in each patient with diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients at risk for DFS should be followed by diabetologists, those with moderate and severe risk for the development of DFS or those with DFS in remission should be already followed by podiatrists. The aim of our study was to determine the extent of DFS risk screening procedures, dispensary care of patients at risk for DFS and treatment of patients with newly developed DFS in diabetes clinics in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

To find out the study data, we prepared in cooperation with the &#268;DS &#268;LS JEP Committee a questionnaire survey for outpatient diabetology specialists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 57% (76/135) of diabetologists. Most of them dispensary approximately 1000- 2000 patients with DM. Their feet are checked by 98.7% of diabetologists (1.6 ± 0.8 times a year on average). Screening for the risk of DFS (13024) is performing in less than 100 patients by 74.3% of diabetologists, in 100-200 patients by 14.9% and in more than 200 patients by 10.8% of diabetologists. 77% of respondents are able to examine neuropathy, the rest send their patients to neurologists, peripheral arterial disease is evaluated by only 47.3% of diabetologists (35.3% of them use some form of instrumental examination), others (48.6%) send patients to angiologists, 4.1% of diabetologists do not examine PAD at all). Based on the assessed findings, more than half of the respondents (50.7%) perform scoring for the risk of DFS, but 1/5 of outpatient diabetologists do not know how the scoring is performed. If colleagues find a patient at a risk for DFS, they usually follow him/her by themselves (64.4%), in 24.6% of cases they send the patient immediately to podiatry or surgery (11%). If a patient with a new DFS comes at diabetology clinic, 72.6% of diabetologists are able to prescribe off-loading, 60.3% antibiotics, 47.9% local therapy. Only 52.1% of diabetologists send a patient with a new DFS to outpatient foot clinic, 39.7% to surgery, the rest of them elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

Based on the questionnaire survey results, the screening of DFS is currently severely undersized in outpatient diabetology clinics, it is sufficiently performed only by 11% of diabetologists. Only 16% of diabetologists perform some form of non-invasive diagnostic procedures detecting peripheral arterial disease, neuropathy examinations are more common. If a diabetologist meet a patient with newly developed DFS, he/she is able to prescribe off-loading or antibiotics, but only half of the diabetologists send the patient to outpatient foot clinic, probably due to a lack of them or their overload.