Matthew Malone1,2,3, Adriaan Erasmus4,5, Saskia Schwarzer4,5, Namson S Lau4,6, Mehtab Ahmad7, Hugh G Dickson4,5. 1. High Risk Foot Service, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, NSW, 2170, Australia. Matthew.Malone@westernsydney.edu.au. 2. South West Sydney Limb Preservation and Wound Research Academic Unit, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, NSW, 2170, Australia. Matthew.Malone@westernsydney.edu.au. 3. Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, 1 Campbell Street, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia. Matthew.Malone@westernsydney.edu.au. 4. High Risk Foot Service, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, NSW, 2170, Australia. 5. South West Sydney Limb Preservation and Wound Research Academic Unit, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, NSW, 2170, Australia. 6. South West Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 7. Department of Vascular Surgery, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Lawrence A Lavery; David G Armstrong; Robert P Wunderlich; M Jane Mohler; Christopher S Wendel; Benjamin A Lipsky Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Benjamin A Lipsky; Éric Senneville; Zulfiqarali G Abbas; Javier Aragón-Sánchez; Mathew Diggle; John M Embil; Shigeo Kono; Lawrence A Lavery; Matthew Malone; Suzanne A van Asten; Vilma Urbančič-Rovan; Edgar J G Peters Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Matilde Monteiro-Soares; David Russell; Edward J Boyko; William Jeffcoate; Joseph L Mills; Stephan Morbach; Fran Game Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Eric Senneville; Audrey Lombart; Eric Beltrand; Michel Valette; Laurence Legout; Marie Cazaubiel; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Pierre Fontaine Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 19.112