When and how to audit a diabetic foot service

Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the diabetic foot can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A diabetes foot service should have risk stratification system in place that...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews 2016-01, Vol.32 (S1), p.311-317
Hauptverfasser: Leese, Graham P., Stang, Duncan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 317
container_issue S1
container_start_page 311
container_title Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews
container_volume 32
creator Leese, Graham P.
Stang, Duncan
description Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the diabetic foot can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A diabetes foot service should have risk stratification system in place that should compare to the population‐based figures of 76% having low‐risk feet, 17% moderate risk and 7% being at high risk of ulceration. Resources can then be directed towards those with high‐risk feet. Prevalence of foot ulceration needs to be audited. Community‐based studies give an audit standard of around 2%, with 2 to 9% having had an ulcer at some stage in the past. Amputation rates should be easier to measure, and the best results are reported to be around 1.5–3 per 1000 people with diabetes. This is a useful benchmark figure, and the rate has been shown to decrease by approximately a third over the last 15 years in some centres. Ulceration rates and ulcer healing rates are the ultimate outcome audit measure as they are always undesirable, whilst occasionally for defined individuals, an amputation can be a good outcome. In addition to clinical outcomes, processes of care can be audited such as provision of clinical services, time from new ulcer to be seen by health care professional, inpatient foot care or use of antibiotics. Measurement of clinical services can be a challenge in the diabetic foot, but it is essential if clinical services and patient outcomes are to be improved. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/dmrr.2749
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761079503</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1761079503</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4549-407f9ca4bb1ea6295371c4077ce49844bed5a9ee9a0926c2e1133ff2205613443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFOGzEQhi1UBClw4AWqlXqhh4WxPbbjI0oKBRGQEIij5fXOig1JNti7Bd6-GyXkUKk9zWj0_Z9GP2PHHE45gDgr5zGeCoN2hw24EpAbpeHLdldin31NaQoAEjXusX2hUQk9lAOWPz3TIvOLMntu3rK2yXxX1m3ms7L2BbV1yKqmabNE8Xcd6JDtVn6W6GgzD9jjxc-H0a_85u7yanR-kwdUaHMEU9ngsSg4eS2skoaH_mgCoR0iFlQqb4msByt0EMS5lFUlBCjNJaI8YCdr7zI2rx2l1s3rFGg28wtquuS40RyMVSB79Ptf6LTp4qL_zglAoTWgwf9RvQu4QYBhT_1YUyE2KUWq3DLWcx8_HAe3atqtmnarpnv228bYFXMqt-RntT1wtgbe6hl9_NvkxpP7-40yXyfq1NL7NuHji9NGGuWebi_dGG_teDi5diP5B4Xhkr8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1760174008</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>When and how to audit a diabetic foot service</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Leese, Graham P. ; Stang, Duncan</creator><creatorcontrib>Leese, Graham P. ; Stang, Duncan</creatorcontrib><description>Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the diabetic foot can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A diabetes foot service should have risk stratification system in place that should compare to the population‐based figures of 76% having low‐risk feet, 17% moderate risk and 7% being at high risk of ulceration. Resources can then be directed towards those with high‐risk feet. Prevalence of foot ulceration needs to be audited. Community‐based studies give an audit standard of around 2%, with 2 to 9% having had an ulcer at some stage in the past. Amputation rates should be easier to measure, and the best results are reported to be around 1.5–3 per 1000 people with diabetes. This is a useful benchmark figure, and the rate has been shown to decrease by approximately a third over the last 15 years in some centres. Ulceration rates and ulcer healing rates are the ultimate outcome audit measure as they are always undesirable, whilst occasionally for defined individuals, an amputation can be a good outcome. In addition to clinical outcomes, processes of care can be audited such as provision of clinical services, time from new ulcer to be seen by health care professional, inpatient foot care or use of antibiotics. Measurement of clinical services can be a challenge in the diabetic foot, but it is essential if clinical services and patient outcomes are to be improved. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1520-7552</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-7560</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2749</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26452683</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DMRRFM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Amputation ; Antibiotics ; audit ; Audits ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Congresses as Topic ; Diabetes ; Diabetes mellitus ; Diabetic Foot - diagnosis ; Diabetic Foot - prevention &amp; control ; Diabetic Foot - rehabilitation ; Diabetic Foot - therapy ; Early Diagnosis ; Feet ; foot ; Foot diseases ; Global Health ; Health care management ; Humans ; inpatient ; Leg ulcers ; Limb Salvage - adverse effects ; Limb Salvage - trends ; Medical Audit - methods ; Medical Audit - trends ; Precision Medicine ; Protective Devices - trends ; Quality control ; Quality Improvement ; Quality of Health Care ; Recurrence ; Referral and Consultation - trends ; Shoes - adverse effects ; ulcer</subject><ispartof>Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2016-01, Vol.32 (S1), p.311-317</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4549-407f9ca4bb1ea6295371c4077ce49844bed5a9ee9a0926c2e1133ff2205613443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4549-407f9ca4bb1ea6295371c4077ce49844bed5a9ee9a0926c2e1133ff2205613443</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fdmrr.2749$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fdmrr.2749$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26452683$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leese, Graham P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stang, Duncan</creatorcontrib><title>When and how to audit a diabetic foot service</title><title>Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews</title><addtitle>Diabetes Metab Res Rev</addtitle><description>Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the diabetic foot can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A diabetes foot service should have risk stratification system in place that should compare to the population‐based figures of 76% having low‐risk feet, 17% moderate risk and 7% being at high risk of ulceration. Resources can then be directed towards those with high‐risk feet. Prevalence of foot ulceration needs to be audited. Community‐based studies give an audit standard of around 2%, with 2 to 9% having had an ulcer at some stage in the past. Amputation rates should be easier to measure, and the best results are reported to be around 1.5–3 per 1000 people with diabetes. This is a useful benchmark figure, and the rate has been shown to decrease by approximately a third over the last 15 years in some centres. Ulceration rates and ulcer healing rates are the ultimate outcome audit measure as they are always undesirable, whilst occasionally for defined individuals, an amputation can be a good outcome. In addition to clinical outcomes, processes of care can be audited such as provision of clinical services, time from new ulcer to be seen by health care professional, inpatient foot care or use of antibiotics. Measurement of clinical services can be a challenge in the diabetic foot, but it is essential if clinical services and patient outcomes are to be improved. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Amputation</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>audit</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Combined Modality Therapy</subject><subject>Congresses as Topic</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Diabetic Foot - therapy</subject><subject>Early Diagnosis</subject><subject>Feet</subject><subject>foot</subject><subject>Foot diseases</subject><subject>Global Health</subject><subject>Health care management</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>inpatient</subject><subject>Leg ulcers</subject><subject>Limb Salvage - adverse effects</subject><subject>Limb Salvage - trends</subject><subject>Medical Audit - methods</subject><subject>Medical Audit - trends</subject><subject>Precision Medicine</subject><subject>Protective Devices - trends</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - trends</subject><subject>Shoes - adverse effects</subject><subject>ulcer</subject><issn>1520-7552</issn><issn>1520-7560</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFOGzEQhi1UBClw4AWqlXqhh4WxPbbjI0oKBRGQEIij5fXOig1JNti7Bd6-GyXkUKk9zWj0_Z9GP2PHHE45gDgr5zGeCoN2hw24EpAbpeHLdldin31NaQoAEjXusX2hUQk9lAOWPz3TIvOLMntu3rK2yXxX1m3ms7L2BbV1yKqmabNE8Xcd6JDtVn6W6GgzD9jjxc-H0a_85u7yanR-kwdUaHMEU9ngsSg4eS2skoaH_mgCoR0iFlQqb4msByt0EMS5lFUlBCjNJaI8YCdr7zI2rx2l1s3rFGg28wtquuS40RyMVSB79Ptf6LTp4qL_zglAoTWgwf9RvQu4QYBhT_1YUyE2KUWq3DLWcx8_HAe3atqtmnarpnv228bYFXMqt-RntT1wtgbe6hl9_NvkxpP7-40yXyfq1NL7NuHji9NGGuWebi_dGG_teDi5diP5B4Xhkr8</recordid><startdate>201601</startdate><enddate>201601</enddate><creator>Leese, Graham P.</creator><creator>Stang, Duncan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201601</creationdate><title>When and how to audit a diabetic foot service</title><author>Leese, Graham P. ; Stang, Duncan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4549-407f9ca4bb1ea6295371c4077ce49844bed5a9ee9a0926c2e1133ff2205613443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Amputation</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>audit</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Combined Modality Therapy</topic><topic>Congresses as Topic</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Diabetic Foot - therapy</topic><topic>Early Diagnosis</topic><topic>Feet</topic><topic>foot</topic><topic>Foot diseases</topic><topic>Global Health</topic><topic>Health care management</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>inpatient</topic><topic>Leg ulcers</topic><topic>Limb Salvage - adverse effects</topic><topic>Limb Salvage - trends</topic><topic>Medical Audit - methods</topic><topic>Medical Audit - trends</topic><topic>Precision Medicine</topic><topic>Protective Devices - trends</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - trends</topic><topic>Shoes - adverse effects</topic><topic>ulcer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leese, Graham P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stang, Duncan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leese, Graham P.</au><au>Stang, Duncan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>When and how to audit a diabetic foot service</atitle><jtitle>Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Diabetes Metab Res Rev</addtitle><date>2016-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>311</spage><epage>317</epage><pages>311-317</pages><issn>1520-7552</issn><eissn>1520-7560</eissn><coden>DMRRFM</coden><abstract>Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the diabetic foot can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A diabetes foot service should have risk stratification system in place that should compare to the population‐based figures of 76% having low‐risk feet, 17% moderate risk and 7% being at high risk of ulceration. Resources can then be directed towards those with high‐risk feet. Prevalence of foot ulceration needs to be audited. Community‐based studies give an audit standard of around 2%, with 2 to 9% having had an ulcer at some stage in the past. Amputation rates should be easier to measure, and the best results are reported to be around 1.5–3 per 1000 people with diabetes. This is a useful benchmark figure, and the rate has been shown to decrease by approximately a third over the last 15 years in some centres. Ulceration rates and ulcer healing rates are the ultimate outcome audit measure as they are always undesirable, whilst occasionally for defined individuals, an amputation can be a good outcome. In addition to clinical outcomes, processes of care can be audited such as provision of clinical services, time from new ulcer to be seen by health care professional, inpatient foot care or use of antibiotics. Measurement of clinical services can be a challenge in the diabetic foot, but it is essential if clinical services and patient outcomes are to be improved. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26452683</pmid><doi>10.1002/dmrr.2749</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1520-7552
ispartof Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2016-01, Vol.32 (S1), p.311-317
issn 1520-7552
1520-7560
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761079503
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Amputation
Antibiotics
audit
Audits
Combined Modality Therapy
Congresses as Topic
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
Diabetic Foot - diagnosis
Diabetic Foot - prevention & control
Diabetic Foot - rehabilitation
Diabetic Foot - therapy
Early Diagnosis
Feet
foot
Foot diseases
Global Health
Health care management
Humans
inpatient
Leg ulcers
Limb Salvage - adverse effects
Limb Salvage - trends
Medical Audit - methods
Medical Audit - trends
Precision Medicine
Protective Devices - trends
Quality control
Quality Improvement
Quality of Health Care
Recurrence
Referral and Consultation - trends
Shoes - adverse effects
ulcer
title When and how to audit a diabetic foot service
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T00%3A36%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=When%20and%20how%20to%20audit%20a%20diabetic%20foot%20service&rft.jtitle=Diabetes/metabolism%20research%20and%20reviews&rft.au=Leese,%20Graham%20P.&rft.date=2016-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=311&rft.epage=317&rft.pages=311-317&rft.issn=1520-7552&rft.eissn=1520-7560&rft.coden=DMRRFM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/dmrr.2749&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1761079503%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1760174008&rft_id=info:pmid/26452683&rfr_iscdi=true