Vanessa Ng

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.

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

BackgroundFoot disease complications, such as foot ulcers and infection, contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality. These complications are typically precipitated by “high-risk factors”, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. High-risk factors are more prevalent in specific “at risk” populations such as diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. To the best of the authors’ knowledge a tool capturing multiple high-risk factors and foot disease complications in multiple at risk populations has yet to be tested. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool.MethodsThe study was conducted in two phases. Phase one developed a QHRFF using an existing diabetes foot disease tool, literature searches, stakeholder groups and expert panel. Phase two tested the QHRFF for validity and reliability. Four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited to test validity and reliability. Three cohorts of patients were recruited; one tested criterion measure reliability (n = 32), another tested criterion validity and inter-rater reliability (n = 43), and another tested intra-rater reliability (n = 19). Validity was determined using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Reliability was determined using Kappa, weighted Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics.ResultsA QHRFF tool containing 46 items across seven domains was developed. Criterion measure reliability of at least moderate categories of agreement (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 91% (29 of 32) tested items. Criterion validity of at least moderate categories (PPV > 0.7) was seen in 83% (60 of 72) tested items. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of at least moderate categories (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 88% (84 of 96) and 87% (20 of 23) tested items respectively.ConclusionsThe QHRFF had acceptable validity and reliability across the majority of items; particularly items identifying relevant co-morbidities, high-risk factors and foot disease complications. Recommendations have been made to improve or remove identified weaker items for future QHRFF versions. Overall, the QHRFF possesses suitable practicality, validity and reliability to assess and capture relevant foot disease items across multiple at risk populations.

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.

Foot ulcer simulation training (FUST): are podiatrists FUST with long-term clinical confidence?

Background Foot ulcers are a leading cause of diabetes-related hospitalisations. Clinical training has been shown to be beneficial in foot ulcer management. Recently, improved selfconfidence in podiatrists was reported immediately after foot ulcer simulation training (FUST) pilot programs. This study aimed to investigate the longer-term impacts of the FUST program on podiatrists’ self-confidence over 12 months in a larger sample.

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.

Mobility impairment and bad feet … who'd of guessed? The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS).

Background Foot complications have been found to be predictors of mobility impairment and falls in community dwelling elderly patients. However, fewer studies have investigated the link between foot complications and mobility impairment in hospital in patient populations. The aim of this paper was to investigate the associations between mobility impairment and various foot complications in general inpatient populations. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, footwear, foot complication history risk factors, and, mobility impairment defined as requiring a mobility aid for mobilisation prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Mobility impairment was present in 242 (33.2%) participants; diabetes populations reported more mobility impairment than non-diabetes populations (40.7% vs 30.9%, p < 0.05). In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis, and controlling for other risk factors, those people with mobility impairment were independently associated with increasing years of age (OR = 1.04 (95% CI) (1.02-1.05)), male gender (OR = 1.7 (1.2-2.5)), being born in Australia (OR = 1.7 (1.1-2.8), vision impairment (2.0 (1.2-3.1)), peripheral neuropathy (OR = 3.1 (2.0-4.6) and foot deformity (OR = 2.0 (1.3-3.0). Conclusions These findings support the results of other large studies investigating community dwelling elderly patients that peripheral neuropathy and foot deformity are independently associated with mobility impairment and potentially falls. Furthermore the findings suggest routine clinical diagnosis of foot complications as defined by national diabetic foot guidelines were sufficient to determine these associated foot complication risk factors for mobility impairment. Further research is required to establish if these foot complication risk factors for mobility impairment are predictors of actual falls in the inpatient environment.

Is the clinical Queensland High Risk Foot Form valid or reliable for research

Background High-risk foot complications such as neuropathy, ischaemia, deformity, infections, ulcers and amputations consume considerable health care resources and typically result from chronic diseases. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool. Methods Phase one involved developing a QHRFF using an existing diabetes high-risk foot tool, literature search, expert panel and several state-wide stakeholder groups. Phase two tested the criterion-related validity along with inter- and intra-rater reliability of the final QHRFF. Three cohorts of patients (n = 94) and four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited. Validity was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics were used to establish reliability. Results A QHRFF tool containing 46-items across seven domains was developed and endorsed. The majority of QHRFF items achieved moderate-to-perfect validity (PPV = 0.71 – 1) and reliability (Kappa/ICC = 0.41 – 1). Items with weak validity and/or reliability included those identifying health professionals previously attending the patient, other (non-listed) co-morbidity, previous foot ulcer, foot deformity, optimum offloading and optimum footwear. Conclusions The QHRFF had moderate-to-perfect validity and reliability across the majority of items, particularly identifying individual co-morbidities and foot complications. Items with weak validity or reliability need to be re-defined or removed. Overall, the QHRFF appears to be a valid and reliable tool to assess, collect and measure clinical data pertaining to high-risk foot complications for clinical or research purposes.