Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 844 - файл

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
11 Мб
Скачать
15 Prevention ofRecurrent Ulcers: Protecting Lives andLimbs
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
199
18. Bus S, Lavery L, Monteiro-Soares M, etal. Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(S1):e3269.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3269.
19. Waaijman R, Keukenkamp R, De Haart M, Polomski WP, Nollet F, Bus SA.Adherence to wearing prescription custom-made footwear in patients with diabetes at high risk for plantar foot ulceration. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(6):1613–8.
20. Montano DE, Kasprzyk D.Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavior model. In: Glanz K, Rimer B, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p.67–96.
21. Binning J. The feasibility of delivering motivational interviewing for participants with cur­rent or history of diabetic foot ulceration. Ph.D. Thesis. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University; 2021.
22. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, Jolliffe J, Noorani H, Rees K, etal. Exercise-based rehabilita­tion for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of random­ized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116:682–92.
23. Lloyd-Jones DM, Hong Y, Labarthe D, Mozaffarian D, Appel LJ, Van Horn L, etal. Dening and setting national goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction: the American Heart Association’s strategic impact goal through 2020 and beyond. Circulation. 2010;121:586–613.
24. Witt BJ, Jacobsen SJ, Weston SA, Killian JM, Meverden RA, Allison TG, etal. Cardiac reha­bilitation after myocardial infarction in the community. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:988–96.
25. Woodward A, Wallymahmed M, Wilding J, Gill G. Successful cardiovascular risk reduc­tion in type 2 diabetes by nurse-led care using an open clinical algorithm. Diabet Med. 2006;23(7):780–7.
26. Armstrong EJ, Wu J, Singh GD, Dawson DL, Pevec WC, Amsterdam EA, Laird JR.Smoking cessation is associated with decreased mortality and improved amputation-free survival among patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1565–71.
27. Colberg SR, Sigal RJ, Fernhall B, Regensteiner JG, Blissmer BJ, Rubin RR, etal. Exercise and type 2 diabetes: the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Diabetes Association: joint position statement. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:e147–67.
28. Kludin PM, Pansoor M, Singh R, Jernigan S, Farmer K, Rucker J, etal. The effect of exercise on neuropathic symptoms, nerve function, and cutaneous innervation in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Diabetes Complicat. 2012;26(5):424–9.
29. Zwierska I, Walker R, Choksy S, et al. Upper- vs lower-limb aerobic exercise rehabilitation in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42(6):1122–30.
30. LeMaster JW, Mueller MJ, Reiber GE, Mehr DR, Madsen RW, Conn VS.Effect of weight­bearing activity on foot ulcer incidence in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: feet rst randomised controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1385–98.
31. LeMaster JW, Reiber GE, Smith DG, Heagerty PJ, Wallace C.Daily weight-bearing activity does not increase the risk of diabetic foot ulcers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(7):1093–9.
32. Jarl G, van Netten J, Lazzarini P, Crews R, Naja B, Mueller M.Should weight-bearing activ­ity be reduced during healing of plantar diabetic foot ulcers, even when using appropriate ofoading devices. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;175:108733.
33. Francia P, Gulisano M, Anichini R, etal. Diabetic foot and exercise therapy: step by step the role of rigid posture and biomechanics treatment. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2014;10:86–9.
34. Tran M, Haley M.Does exercise improve healing of diabetic foot ulcers? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2021;14:19.
35. Fox M, Smith-Burgess L.Amputation, early death and surviving diabetes-related foot dis­ease—is it time to talk more openly with patients. Diabetic Foot J. 2018;21(1):38–42.
36. McCarthy M, Yates T, Webb D, etal. Health impacts of seated arm ergometry training in patients with a diabetic foot ulcer: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e039062. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen- 2020- 039062.
37. Webster R, Heeley E.Perceptions of risk: understanding cardiovascular disease. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2010;3:49–60.
200
38. American College of Cardiology. Improving cardiovascular risk communications|clinician toolkit. 2020. https://www.acc.org/- /media/Non- Clinical/Files- PDFs- Excel- MS- Word-
etc/Tools- and- Practice- Support/Risk- Communications/2- Full- Toolkit.pdf. Accessed 28th
February 2022.
39. Kok G, Peters GY, Kessels LT, Ten Hoor GA, Ruiter RA.Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: the false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12(2):111–25.
40. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP.SPIKES–a six- step proto­col for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5:302–11.
41. Kaplan M.SPIKES: a framework for breaking bad news to patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2010;14(4):514–6.
42. Hart SL, Hart TA.The future of cognitive behavioral interventions within behavioral medicine. J Cogn Psychother. 2010;24(4):344–53.
43. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis JJ, Hardeman W, etal. The behav­ior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81–95.
44. Kwasnicka D, Dombrowski SU, White M, Sniehotta F.Theoretical explanations for mainte­nance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):277–96.
45. Miller WR, Rose G. Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. Am Psychol. 2009;64(6):527–37.
46. Magill M, Hallgren KA.Mechanisms of behavior change in motivational interviewing: do we understand how MI works? Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;30:1–5.
47. Lundahl BW, Burke BL. The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(11):1232–45.
48. Moyers TB, Martin T, Christopher PJ, Houck JM, Tonigan JS, Amrhein PC.Client language as a mediator of motivational interviewing efcacy: where is the evidence? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(10):40s–7s.
49. Amrhein PC, Miller WR, Yahne CE, Palmer M, Fulcher L.Client commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(5):862–78.
50. Ismail K, Winkley K, Stahl D, Chalder T, Edmonds M. A Cohort study of people with diabetes and their rst foot ulcer: the role of depression on mortality. Diabwetes Care 2007;6:1473–9.
51. Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305.
52. Binning J, Woodburn J, Bus SA, Barn R. Motivational interviewing to improve adher­ence behaviours for the prevention of diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019;35:e3105.
53. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BLA.Meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-ve years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20(2):137–60.
54. Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P.Diabetic foot ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. Int Wound J. 2018;15(1):43–52.
M. Fox and J. Binning
Chapter 16
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
The Role oftheMultidisciplinary Team intheManagement ofDiabetic Foot Complications andOrganisation ofRegional Networks andData Collection
AndrewSchiro andArunD.Pherwani
Overview
Across the UK, major amputations pose a signicant burden on the NHS with a considerable disparity depending on geographic locations. It was shown 10years ago that the rates of major amputation varied a staggering tentimes between locali-
ties [1], and a recent review suggested that it appeared to be only slightly less so in more recent years [2].
The National Vascular Registry
The 2020 National Vascular Registry (NVR) report logged 10,022 patients who underwent major amputation surgery in the UK between 2017–2019. These com­prised 52% below knee amputations (BKA) and 48% above knee amputations (AKA). The majority of patients were men who presented with tissue loss and over half had already undergone a previous ipsilateral lower limb amputation. Nearly 80% of these patients presented acutely and over 90% suffered one or more com­mon co-morbidities. Diabetes Mellitus (DM) was the major co-morbidity in 70% of patients undergoing BKA.These patients often stay long in hospital with a median stay of 23days (IQR 13–39days) with an overall in hospital mortality of 8% [3].
There have been major improvements seen in the care of these patients following recommendations from the NCEPOD report on major amputations with in-hospital mortality reported at just under 5% for below-knee amputations and under 10% for above-knee amputations compared to an overall mortality at nearly 13% in the 2014 NCEPOD publication [4].
A. Schiro (*) · A. D. Pherwani Universitry Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK e-mail: andrew.schiro@uhnm.nhs.uk; Arun.Pherwani@uhnm.nhs.uk
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. P. Shearman, P. Chong (eds.), Management of Diabetic Foot Complications,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05832-5_16
201
202
However, there still remain areas where care of these patients can improve along with more accurate recording of data on national audits such as the NVR with case ascertainment rates >85% recommended in the 2018 GIRFT Vascular report [5]. The case ascertainment rates for major amputation on NVR remain around 80% when compared to HES (Hospital Episode Statistics) data [6].
The importance of data collection cannot be overstated. Many NHS Trusts are still failing to record a large proportion of their major lower limb amputations in the NVR.Furthermore, the NVR records a very small number of minor amputations (n-3335, 23.5%) during the same period, grossly under representing the activity and the burden of disease. This is particularly important in terms of outcomes for these and the potential for prevention, given that over half of the patients undergoing major amputation have undergone a previous ipsilateral minor amputation.
A. Schiro and A. D. Pherwani
The National Diabetic Foot Audit
Since its establishment in 2014 The National Diabetic Foot Care Audit (NFDA) measures the volumes outcomes and treatment structures/processes for newly occurring foot ulcers affecting diabetic patients. The NDFA aims to record every new foot ulcer, measure healing rates and record the numbers amputations in patients with diabetic foot ulceration Their aim was to determine the variation in clinical outcomes across England and Wales and the extent to which the differences could be explained by differences in patient care. NFDA consistently found a strong link between ulcer severity and worse outcomes in diabetic patients. Early referral meant better outcomes [7].
The NDFA team aims to support foot care for patients with diabetes through consul­tations with health care professionals and policy makers. They have identied the need to reduce the time of referral and assessment of such patients to improve outcome. With its access to the NVR and Hospital Electronic Statistics (HES) database the NFDA audit team can identify regions in the UK which are faring poorly and in so doing could aid and suggest measures to improve outcomes. However, the problem with the NDFA remains relatively poor case ascertainment and a recent editorial highlighted the need for reliable data on outcomes in the management of diabetic foot disease [8].
Shared data and linkage between the NVR the NDFA both commissioned under the HQIP programme of national audits with HES data correlation will help deter­mine the scope of the problem and drive the quality improvements required in the care of patients with diabetic foot disease along with the priorities of the PAD-QIF [9].
Diabetic Patient intheCommunity-Prevention andManagement
Patients with diabetes mellitus attending community GP surgeries should undergo a thorough assessment to provide an all-round person evaluation to determine and understand the factors that are affecting health and quality of life. Diabetes is
16 The Role of the Multidisciplinary Team in the Management of Diabetic Foot…
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Fig. 16.1 A healthcare professional seeing high risk diabetic foot patients should be competent able to undertake these assessments
203
Fig. 16.2 Key features of diabetic foot ulcer prevention
commonly associated with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity and physical inac­tivity all of which predispose to a high cardiovascular risk which should be addressed.
Patient education presented in a structured and repeated manner plays an impor­tant in the role in diabetic foot ulcer prevention. A well-educated patient will have proper foot self-care knowledge and is able to ag up any abnormalities to their GP, practice nurse or podiatrist. Patients need to learn how to identify foot ulcers and signs of infection before problems arise. Likewise, healthcare professionals should periodically be improving their skills on how to identify and manage high risk dia­betic foot patients (see Fig.16.1).
Individualised planning for ongoing care should also be developed at this stage, including negotiated goals and expectations. Secondary prevention to prevent com­plications of macrovascular disease in the form of smoking cessation, appropriate antiplatelet, statin and antihypertensive therapy and ACE (Angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors/ARB’s (Angiotensin Receptor Blockers) to prevent renal com­plications and nephropathy requires to be initiated early in the disease [1012]. In the ideal scenario diabetic patients should have all their co-morbidities well con­trolled, have proper foot wear and advice to prevent them from developing foot ulcers/ischaemia in the rst place (Fig.16.2). However, we know that this is virtu­ally impossible as patients slip through the system. Patients with diabetic foot ulcers should be referred to and followed up by the local podiatry team on a regular basis
204
A. Schiro and A. D. Pherwani
to constantly ag new changes in their feet. When infection sets in, ulcers fail to heal, or limbs become ischaemic patients should be referred urgently to the local vascular team for evaluation.
Diabetic Foot Service inHospital
A diabetic foot service should be co-ordinated through diabetic foot clinics and include multidisciplinary team (MDT) who review new and follow-up patients. The ideal MDT should consist of a podiatrist, dietician, orthotist, diabetologist, micro­biologist, orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon, vascular scientist, vascular surgeon and a vascular interventional radiologist. Following the initial assessment, a plan is actioned which is patient centred (Fig.16.3). Patients should be either be followed up in the podiatry clinic in the community if they have minor issues or in joint mul­tidisciplinary clinics for more complex patients. Follow-up should consist of regular patient education, foot care, bypass graft surveillance and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease [13]. The pathway ensures early detection of com­plications and provides aggressive management of ulcers.
Diabetic patients with severe foot problems should be admitted to hospital under the medical or vascular teams and cared for in an MDT approach. Vascular special­ists, in particular interventional radiologists, can then guide the teams appropriately with required imaging such as pre-operative magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), computerised tomographic angiography (CTA), or catheter angiography when surgical intervention is required or intervene endovascularly. A 24h on call service for accepting referrals of patients with diabetic feet, whether urgent or chronic is important in that it helps avoid missing or delaying treatment [14].
The Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland (VSGBI)’s Provision of Vascular Services (POVS) 2021 document recommends that patients admitted as an emer­gency should have specialist review, WIFI score and vascular imaging performed
Fig. 16.3 Key components of a diabetic foot service
16 The Role of the Multidisciplinary Team in the Management of Diabetic Foot…
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
205
within 48h of referral irrespective of whether admitted to the arterial centre or a network hospital whereas the non-admitted patients should have specialist review, WIFI score, and vascular imaging performed within 7days of referral, ideally at a network hospital close to where they live [15].
The GIRFT DM Report
The issues we raise in this chapter were highlighted in the ndings and recommenda­tions of the GIRFT (Getting it Right First Time), report on DM published in November 2020 [16]. It was noted that one in six hospitals in England did not have a multidisci­plinary foot care team; A quarter of hospitals diabetes inpatient MDTs did not have a single diabetes inpatient specialist nurse and were woefully understaffed [17].
Recommendations were made that trusts should have a dedicated diabetes inpa­tient MDT, including nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, psychologists and podiatrists. These also should include the right expertise in medical teams with diabetologists, foot and ankle surgeons and vascular surgeons all with a keen interest in the preven­tion and management of diabetic foot ulceration [18].
The report further recommended that trusts should work towards providing a seven-day service with at least one MDT team member, such as a specialist diabetes inpatient nurse, available for part of the day on weekends so that urgent cases can be seen by a diabetes specialist within hours.
For outpatient services, the report recommended having a community-based footcare protection service (FPS) to screen people and help prevent diabetes-related problems in the community, along with rapid access to specialist hospital-based MDTs to reduce rates of ulceration and amputation. Community-based staff should be trained to carry out foot screening examinations.
As has been noted previously, the GIRFT also reported a wide variation in the quality and coordination of these services across the country. In many areas, hospi­tals still do not have a fully established MDTs, and in some areas, there is no FPS.They also recommend that all trusts should have a dedicated MDT’s well inte­grated with the FPS.
The GIRFT team identied vascular impairment as a key contributor to diabetic foot ulceration and amputation and therefore suggested it was vital for at risk diabetes patients to have access to good vascular services. It was noted that in particular the smaller non arterial spoke hospitals found difculty in obtaining urgent vascular opin­ion. Hence, their recommendation was every patient with a diabetic footcare emer­gency requiring admission should be assessed the same day by the hospital- based MDT, and if vascular impairment is identied, they should have same day access to a vascular opinion either with surgeons who have dedicated sessions at spoke site and if not, then there may the need for urgent transfer to the vascular arterial hub site.
The GIRFT report reviewed the importance of data and coding and made recom­mendation that every acute trust should submit data to the National Diabetes Audit, the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit and the National Diabetes Footcare Audit including reporting of harms, quarterly review of results and national benchmarking
206
A. Schiro and A. D. Pherwani
with peers [19]. The report clearly recommends adequate IT support for these tasks identifying the importance of data analysts and coders.
An area that remains to be addressed is the disconnect between traditional Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG), derived community based diabetic foot services and Specialised Commissioned in-patient arterial services which have posed signicant challenges to the establishment of robust, reliable, well-resourced and nationally reproducible integrated diabetic foot care services between commu­nity FPS and hospital based inpatient diabetic food MDT’s.
Rapid access to vascular surgeons in 24–48h has been highlighted in the GIRFT DM 2020 report and in POVS 2021 and this calls for renewed efforts to integrate vascular and diabetes services. One would hope future commissioning intentions with Integrated Care Services (ICS’s) would meet healthcare needs across regions, coordinate services and reduce inequality and variation [20].
Furthermore, there should be unied and widely adopted recommendations about aggressive early medical management and preventative therapies to avoid macrovas­cular complications, provide early recognition and prevent or treat diabetic foot ulcer­ation long before they approach vascular shores as we commonly see with end stage diabetes, poor glycaemic control, unaddressed vascular risk factors, and a “foot attack” that often culminates in amputation with a signicant risk of death [21].
Key Points
– The ideal MDT consists of a podiatrist, dietician, orthotist, diabetologist, micro-
biologist, orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon, vascular scientist, vascular sur-
geon and a vascular interventional radiologist.
– Early referral and involvement of the MDT in diabetic foot care improves
outcomes.
– Every Acute Trust providing Diabetic Foot care should enter data to the National
Diabetic Foot Ulcer Audit (NDFA) and the National Vascular Registry (NVR).
– A community based Footcare protection service (FPS) should be in place to
screen patients and help prevent diabetes-related problems with rapid access care
pathways to specialist hospital-based Diabetic Foot MDTs.
– All patients with diabetic foot complications requiring emergency care should be
admitted and assessed on the same day by a member of the MDT diabetic foot
services and those with vascular impairment reviewed by the vascular team
within 24–48h.
References
1. Holman N, Young RJ, Jeffcoate WJ. Variation in the recorded incidence of amputation of the lower limb in England. Diabetologia. 2012;55(7):1919–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00125- 012- 2468- 6.
2. Jeffcoate W, Barron E, Lomas J, Valabhji J, Young B. Using data to tackle the burden of amputation in diabetes. Lancet. 2017;390(10105):e29–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140- 6736(17)32401- 7.
3. www.vsqip.org.uk/nvr.
16 The Role of the Multidisciplinary Team in the Management of Diabetic Foot…
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
4. vsqip.org.uk/content/uploads/2021/11/NVR- Amputation- Infographic- 2021.pdf. vsqip.
org.uk/content/uploads/2021/11/NVR- Amputation- Infographic- 2021.pdf. www.ncepod. org.uk/2014report2/downloads/Working%20Together_FullReport.pdf. www.ncepod.org. uk/2014report2/downloads/Working%20Together_FullReport.pdf (accessed).
5. gettingitrightrsttime.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/VascularSurgeryReportMar18-Q.pdf.
6. 2021 Annual Report|VSQIP. https://www.vsqip.org.uk/reports/2021- annual- report/
7. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/clinical-audits-and-registries/national-diabetes-
foot-care-audit.
8. Jeffcoate W, Askey A, Berry A, Boyle A, Game F, Leigh R, Michalowski J, Pherwani A, Shearman C, Young B.Do we know how good we are at managing diabetic foot ulcers? A question for those who do not yet participate in the NDFA.Diabetes Foot J. 2020;23(3):8–9.
9. hqip.org.uk/a- z- of- nca/#.Yj_6xi8RqgQ. vascularsociety.org.uk/_userles/pages/les/
Newsletters/PAD%20QIF%20April%202019(1).pdf. vascularsociety.org.uk/_userles/pages/ les/Newsletters/PAD%20QIF%20April%202019(1).pdf (accessed).
10. wikidoc.org/index.php/Diabetes_mellitus_type_2_secondary_prevention. wikidoc.org/index.
php/Diabetes_mellitus_type_2_secondary_prevention (accessed).
11. Schmit K, Dolor RJ, Jones WS, Vemulapalli S, Hasselblad V, Subherwal S, Heidenfelder B, Patel MR.Comparative effectiveness review of antiplatelet agents in peripheral artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(6):e001330. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.001330.
12. Home P, Mant J, Diaz J, Turner C, Group GD. Management of type 2 diabetes: sum­mary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2008;336(7656):1306–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.39560.442095.AD.
13. Diabetes UK.Putting feet rst: six step guide to improving diabetes footcare. 08/Putting%20 feet%20rst%206%20steps.pdf.
14. Diabetic Foot Problems. Inpatient management of diabetic foot problems. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Clinical Guideline 119. www.nice.org.uk/
guidance/CG119.
15. https://www.vascularsociety.org.uk/_userles/pages/les/Resources/FINAL%20POVS.pdf. Accessed https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19.
16. https://www.gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/11/GIRFT- diabetes-
report.pdf.
17. The cost of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations to the National Health Service in England, 2019 Diabetic Medicine.
18. Akiboye F, Rayman G.Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes in orthopedic surgery. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17(2):13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892- 017- 0839- 6.
19. National Diabetes Inpatient Audit (NaDia) - 2017. March 2018. NHD Digital. https://digi-
tal.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/national-diabetes-inpatient-audit/ national-diabetes-inpatient-audit-nadia-2017.
20. www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/what- is- integrated- care/.
21. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/resources- s3/2017- 10/Inpatient%20Care%20for%20People%20
with%20Diabetes%20%20The%20Economic%20Nov%202011_1.pdf.
207
Further Reading
Boulton AJM.The diabetic foot. Med Clin North Am. 2013;97:5.
Chapter 17
How toMeasure Success
NaseerAhmad andFrankL.Bowling
What Is thePublished Prevalence ofAmputation andthePitfalls ofIts Analysis?
To determine the number and epidemiology of diabetic foot amputations (in the UK), data is available from two sources: published peer reviewed journals and freely available national/local databases. This data can then be used to compare outcomes across both geographic areas and individual services.
Published Data Regarding Amputations
The published prevalence of major lower limb amputation has been reviewed sys­tematically and found to vary between 5.6 and 600 per 100,000 population in people with diabetes [1]. The reasons for this huge variation were subject to another sys­tematic review which concentrated on the methodological difculties of reported studies [2]. Davies et al. [3] reviewed publications describing major lower limb amputation rates in England over a 30-year period (1988–2018) and found that
N. Ahmad (*) Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK e-mail: Naseer.Ahmad@mft.nhs.uk
F. L. Bowling Surgery & Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
Victor Babes RO & Nicolae Testemitanu MD Schools of Medicine, Manchester, UK e-mail: frank.bowling@manchester.ac.uk
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. P. Shearman, P. Chong (eds.), Management of Diabetic Foot Complications,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05832-5_17
209