What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. 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 wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care.

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.

Social determinants of health and diabetic foot disease

Background Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is the leading cause of hospitalisation and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in people with diabetes. Many studies have established the relationship between DFD and clinical risk factors, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. Other studies have identified the relationship between diabetes and non-clinical risk factors termed social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status. However, it appears very few studies have investigated the relationship between DFD and SDoH. This paper aims to review the existing literature investigating the relationship between DFD and the SDoH factors socioeconomic status (SES), race and geographical remoteness (remoteness). Process Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed) were searched for studies reporting SES, race (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia) and remoteness and their relationship to DFD and LEA. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted in developing countries and studies published prior to 2000. Findings Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 10 in Australia. Overall, 28 (58%) studies investigated LEA, 10 (21%) DFD, and 10 (21%) DFD and LEA as the DFD-related outcome. Thirty-six (75%) studies investigated the SDoH risk factor of race, 22 (46%) SES, and 20 (42%) remoteness. SES, race and remoteness were found to be individually associated with LEA and DFD in the majority of studies. Only four studies investigated interactions between SES, race and remoteness and DFD with contrasting findings. All four studies used only LEA as their investigated outcome. No Australian studies investigate the interaction of all three SDoH risk factors on DFD outcomes. Conclusions The SDoH risk factors of SES, race and GR appear to be individually associated with DFD. However, only few studies investigated the interaction of these three major SDoH risk factors and DFD outcomes with contrasting results. There is a clear gap in this area of DFD research and particularly in Australia. Until urgent future research is performed, current practice and policy does not adequately take into consideration the implication of SDoH on DFD.