Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections

被引:6
|
作者
Malone, Matthew [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Erasmus, Adriaan [1 ,2 ]
Schwarzer, Saskia [1 ,2 ]
Lau, Namson S. [1 ,4 ]
Ahmad, Mehtab [5 ]
Dickson, Hugh G. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Liverpool Hosp, South Western Sydney LHD, High Risk Foot Serv, Sydney, NSW 2170, Australia
[2] South Western Sydney LHD, South West Sydney Limb Preservat & Wound Res Acad, Sydney, NSW 2170, Australia
[3] Ingham Inst Appl Med Res, 1 Campbell St, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia
[4] Univ New South Wales, South West Clin Sch, Fac Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Liverpool Hosp, South Western Sydney LHD, Dept Vasc Surg, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims To utilise the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) - diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines as an audit tool for clinical practice in patients with diabetes attending a High-Risk Foot Service. Methods Data from 93 consecutive patients were collected over a 19-month period in patients attending a High-Risk Foot Service. The diagnosis and management of each patient in the sample were compared against the 2019 IWGDF DFI guidelines, grouped into four categories: Diagnosis, Microbiology, Treatment of soft tissue infection, and Surgical treatment and osteomyelitis. Deficits in performance were recorded using the recommendations as a benchmark standard. Results There were 109 DFI events. Nineteen (63%) of the recommendations were met, 7 (24%) were partially met, and four (13%) recommendations were not met. Fourteen of the sample had no documented requests for full blood counts. Tissue was obtained for culture in 32 (29%) of the sample. No percutaneous bone biopsies were performed. Only 13 (28%) patients had intraoperative bone specimens sent for culture and sensitivities, with no bone specimens sent for histopathology. Modification of antibiotic therapy following available culture results was low, occurring in 12 out of 63 possible occasions (19%). The duration of antibiotic regimens in PEDIS 2 infections and osteomyelitis was greater than that recommended. Conclusions Utilising the IWGDF DFI guidelines to benchmark clinical practice is a useful tool to identify gaps in clinical performance or service delivery and may help to improve patient care.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections
    Matthew Malone
    Adriaan Erasmus
    Saskia Schwarzer
    Namson S. Lau
    Mehtab Ahmad
    Hugh G. Dickson
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 14
  • [2] Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019)
    Monteiro-Soares, Matilde
    Russell, David
    Boyko, Edward J.
    Jeffcoate, William
    Mills, Joseph L.
    Morbach, Stephan
    Game, Fran
    DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2020, 36
  • [3] Diabetic foot: Practice guidelines of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) 2020-2021
    Tsagkaris, C.
    Sevdalis, N.
    Syrigou, E.
    Vakka, A.
    Kamaratos, A.
    SCIENTIFIC CHRONICLES, 2021, 26 (01) : 165 - 180
  • [4] IWGDF Guidelines on the Prevention and Management of Diabetic Foot Disease
    Jakosz, Nicholai
    WOUND PRACTICE AND RESEARCH, 2019, 27 (03): : 144 - 144
  • [5] Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update)
    Schaper, Nicolaas C.
    van Netten, Jaap J.
    Apelqvist, Jan
    Bus, Sicco A.
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    Lipsky, Benjamin A.
    DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2020, 36
  • [6] Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)
    Lipsky, Benjamin A.
    Senneville, Eric
    Abbas, Zulfiqarali G.
    Aragon-Sanchez, Javier
    Diggle, Mathew
    Embil, John M.
    Kono, Shigeo
    Lavery, Lawrence A.
    Malone, Matthew
    van Asten, Suzanne A.
    Urbancic-Rovan, Vilma
    Peters, Edgar J. G.
    DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2020, 36
  • [7] Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)
    Bus, Sicco A.
    Lavery, Lawrence A.
    Monteiro-Soares, Matilde
    Rasmussen, Anne
    Raspovic, Anita
    Sacco, Isabel C. N.
    van Netten, Jaap J.
    DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2020, 36
  • [8] Guidelines for diabetic foot care
    Pinzur, MS
    Slovenkai, MP
    Trepman, E
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 1999, 20 (11) : 695 - 702
  • [9] Guidelines on offloading foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)
    Bus, Sicco A.
    Armstrong, David G.
    Gooday, Catherine
    Jarl, Gustav
    Caravaggi, Carlo
    Viswanathan, Vijay
    Lazzarini, Peter A.
    DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2020, 36
  • [10] DIABETIC FOOT CARE - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND PRACTICE GUIDELINES
    REIBER, GE
    DIABETES CARE, 1992, 15 (01) : 29 - 31