Robert J Commons1,2, James Charles3, Jane Cheney4, Sarah A Lynar5,6, Matthew Malone7,8, Edward Raby9,10. 1. Global Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. robert.commons@gmail.com. 2. Internal Medical Services, Ballarat Health Services, Ballarat, Australia. robert.commons@gmail.com. 3. First Peoples Health Unit, Faculty of Health Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 4. Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Global Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. 6. Infectious Diseases Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Australia. 7. South West Sydney Limb Preservation and Wound Research, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, Australia. 8. Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, School of Medicine Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Sydney, Australia. 9. Infectious Diseases Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia. 10. Department of Microbiology, Fiona Stanley Hospital Network, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Murdoch, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality, both globally and in Australia. There is a need for up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to ensure optimal management of patients with diabetes-related foot infections. We aimed to identify and adapt high quality international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guideline for people with a diabetes-related foot infection. METHODS: Following Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures we identified the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines as suitable for adaptation to the Australian context. Guidelines were screened, assessed and judged by an expert panel for the Australian context using the guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Judgements led to recommendations being adopted, adapted or excluded, with additional consideration regarding their implementation, monitoring and future research for the Australian context. Clinical pathways were then developed to assist implementation. RESULTS: Of 36 original diabetes-related foot infection IWGDF sub-recommendations, 31 were adopted, four were adapted and one was excluded. Adaption was primarily undertaken due to differences or clarification of the sub-recommendations' intended population. One sub-recommendation was excluded due to substantial differences in judgements between the panel and IWGDF and unacceptable heterogeneity of the target population. Therefore, we developed 35 evidence-based sub-recommendations for the Australian context that should guide best practice diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infection in Australia. Additionally, we incorporated these sub-recommendations into two clinical pathways to assist Australian health professionals to implement these evidence-based sub-recommendations into clinical practice. The six guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ . CONCLUSIONS: A new national guideline for the diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infections were successfully developed for the Australian context. In combination with simplified clinical pathway tools they provide an evidence-based framework to ensure best management of individuals with diabetes-related foot infections across Australia and highlight considerations for implementation and monitoring.
BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality, both globally and in Australia. There is a need for up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to ensure optimal management of patients with diabetes-related foot infections. We aimed to identify and adapt high quality international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guideline for people with a diabetes-related foot infection. METHODS: Following Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures we identified the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines as suitable for adaptation to the Australian context. Guidelines were screened, assessed and judged by an expert panel for the Australian context using the guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Judgements led to recommendations being adopted, adapted or excluded, with additional consideration regarding their implementation, monitoring and future research for the Australian context. Clinical pathways were then developed to assist implementation. RESULTS: Of 36 original diabetes-related foot infection IWGDF sub-recommendations, 31 were adopted, four were adapted and one was excluded. Adaption was primarily undertaken due to differences or clarification of the sub-recommendations' intended population. One sub-recommendation was excluded due to substantial differences in judgements between the panel and IWGDF and unacceptable heterogeneity of the target population. Therefore, we developed 35 evidence-based sub-recommendations for the Australian context that should guide best practice diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infection in Australia. Additionally, we incorporated these sub-recommendations into two clinical pathways to assist Australian health professionals to implement these evidence-based sub-recommendations into clinical practice. The six guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ . CONCLUSIONS: A new national guideline for the diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infections were successfully developed for the Australian context. In combination with simplified clinical pathway tools they provide an evidence-based framework to ensure best management of individuals with diabetes-related foot infections across Australia and highlight considerations for implementation and monitoring.
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann; Jenny Moberg; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Elie A Akl; Marina Davoli; Shaun Treweek; Reem A Mustafa; Gabriel Rada; Sarah Rosenbaum; Angela Morelli; Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: Gerry Rayman; Prashanth Vas; Ketan Dhatariya; Vickie Driver; Agnes Hartemann; Magnus Londahl; Alberto Piaggesi; Jan Apelqvist; Chris Attinger; Fran Game Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Limin Jia; Christina N Parker; Tony J Parker; Ewan M Kinnear; Patrick H Derhy; Ann M Alvarado; Flavia Huygens; Peter A Lazzarini Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mary T Bessesen; Gheorghe Doros; Adam M Henrie; Kelly M Harrington; John A Hermos; Robert A Bonomo; Ryan E Ferguson; Grant D Huang; Sheldon T Brown Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Peter A Lazzarini; Anita Raspovic; Jenny Prentice; Robert J Commons; Robert A Fitridge; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Nytasha Purcell; Stephen M Twigg Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Christopher Yates; Kerry May; Thomas Hale; Bernard Allard; Naomi Rowlings; Amy Freeman; Jessica Harrison; Jane McCann; Paul Wraight Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michelle R Kaminski; Jonathan Golledge; Joel W J Lasschuit; Karl-Heinz Schott; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Anita Raspovic Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Pamela Chen; Keryln Carville; Terry Swanson; Peter A Lazzarini; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Jenny Prentice Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Malindu E Fernando; Mark Horsley; Sara Jones; Brian Martin; Vanessa L Nube; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Peter A Lazzarini Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.050