Добавил:
Sekretar
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
15 Prevention ofRecurrent Ulcers: Protecting Lives andLimbs
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
199
18. Bus S, Lavery L, Monteiro-Soares M, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Dening
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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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
ofoading devices. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;175:108733.
33. Francia P, Gulisano M, Anichini R, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 efcacy: 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 oftheMultidisciplinary Team
intheManagement ofDiabetic Foot
Complications andOrganisation
ofRegional Networks andData Collection
AndrewSchiro andArunD.Pherwani
Overview
Across the UK, major amputations pose a signicant burden on the NHS with a
considerable disparity depending on geographic locations. It was shown 10years
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 23days (IQR 13–39days) 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 identied 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 intheCommunity-Prevention andManagement
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 [10–12]. 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 inHospital
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 24h 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 48h 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 7days 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 identied 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 difculty 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 identied, 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 signicant 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 24–48h 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 unied 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 signicant 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 24–48h.
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. gettingitrightrsttime.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/_userles/pages/les/
Newsletters/PAD%20QIF%20April%202019(1).pdf. vascularsociety.org.uk/_userles/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%20rst%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/_userles/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 toMeasure Success
NaseerAhmad andFrankL.Bowling
What Is thePublished Prevalence ofAmputation
andthePitfalls ofIts 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 difculties 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
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025
