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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews 2016-01, Vol.32 (S1), p.311-317 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |