Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Section 8: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIssueDoes patient education improve footcare and outcomes?RecommendationPeople with diabetes should receive specific footcare education.Evidence Statements• Footcare education for people with diabetes improves knowledge and may improveself care behaviourEvidence Level I• Footcare education for people with diabetes may prevent serious foot lesions andamputationEvidence Level I58
Background - Patient Education and Foot DiseaseAn integral part of any strategy to reduce diabetes foot problems requires people withdiabetes to have adequate knowledge to be able to take appropriate action to minimisetheir risk of developing foot complications (Levin, 1995). Deficiencies in self care offeet can occur because people with diabetes have received inadequate information orare not aware of the importance of, or are unable to perform, foot self care behaviour.One study showed that 89% of people with diabetes whose feet are at increased riskwere making multiple errors in their foot self care behaviour (Plummer & Albert,1995). Unfortunately the healthcare system does not currently provide easilyaccessible education or podiatry services for people with diabetes whose feet are “atrisk” (Fletton et al, 1995). Those who are physically unable to practice self footcaredue to age or a disability, like visual impairment, are often dependent on family orcarers who must also be involved in the educational process. Also people with a lowersocio-economic status have increased risk of foot ulceration and poorly fitting (or lackof) footwear (Day & Harkless, 1997).The extent and nature of the education necessary to prevent the development ofdiabetic foot problems and the means of selecting an appropriate educational strategyfor each person is another important consideration. There is a general lack ofconsistency of educational interventions which have used different methods, targetgroups, settings and methods of follow-up which has complicated interpretation ofeducational studies (Mason et al, 1999).Even the most successful published footcare education programmes have not alwayscontinued to be used in the institutions where they were developed (Pichert & Penha,1993). Footcare education programmes should be coordinated and not provideeducation to people with diabetes but staff should also receive education andprompting to perform routine footcare tasks.Evidence - Patient Education and Foot DiseaseFootcare education for people with diabetes improves knowledge and mayimprove self care behaviourValk et al (2002) conducted a Cochrane systematic review through searchingMedline, CINAHL and EMBASE, hand searching of wound care journals andrelevant conference proceedings and identified 8 prospective randomised controlledtrials which evaluated educational programmes for the prevention of foot ulcers inpeople with Type 1 or 2 diabetes. Four RCTs comparing intensive with briefeducational interventions were identified (Barth et al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992;Ronnemaa et al, 1997; Malone et al, 1989). All four were performed in an outpatientcare setting. Patients' knowledge of foot care was reported in 3 of the 4 RCTs (Barthet al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992; Ronnemaa et al, 1997). This outcome was significantlyimproved in 2 of the RCTs, at 6 months in one (Barth et al, 1991) and at 1 year in theother (Ronnemaa et al, 1997). In one RCT, foot care knowledge was not improved inthe intervention group at 6 months follow up (Kruger et al, 1992). However, this RCTstudied small groups (23 patients in the intervention group and 27 in the controlgroup), and also had a relatively high dropout rate.59
- Page 7 and 8: 2.2 Issues for Foot Problems in Typ
- Page 9: • Aim to achieve the best possibl
- Page 12 and 13: Background - Peripheral Neuropathy
- Page 14 and 15: proportion of subjects with a durat
- Page 16 and 17: and an OR 1.1-7.8. This study also
- Page 18 and 19: Summary - Peripheral Neuropathy as
- Page 20 and 21: Section 2: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 22 and 23: predicting risk of amputation, 2.9
- Page 24 and 25: Summary - Peripheral Vascular Disea
- Page 26 and 27: Section 3: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 28 and 29: Evidence - Foot Deformity and Previ
- Page 30 and 31: people with both LJM and neuropathy
- Page 32 and 33: Summary - Foot Deformity and Previo
- Page 34 and 35: Section 4: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 36 and 37: Also in the Seattle study, 67 peopl
- Page 38 and 39: Summary - Ulcer as a Risk Factor fo
- Page 40 and 41: Section 5: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 42 and 43: The other frequently reported metho
- Page 44 and 45: side; and 82% having the same resul
- Page 46 and 47: Evidence Table: Section 5Detection
- Page 48 and 49: Background - Clinical Detection of
- Page 50 and 51: pulse was bilaterally absent in 1.8
- Page 52 and 53: Evidence Table: Section 6AuthorClin
- Page 54 and 55: Background - Frequency of Foot Exam
- Page 56 and 57: Summary - Frequency of Foot Examina
- Page 60 and 61: Behaviour assessment scores, measur
- Page 62 and 63: Mazzuca et al (1986) studies 532 pe
- Page 64 and 65: with before the programme, after 1-
- Page 66 and 67: Evidence Table: Section 8AuthorEffe
- Page 68 and 69: Background - Glycaemic Control and
- Page 70 and 71: In a previous Japanese randomised s
- Page 72 and 73: Evidence Table: Section 9AuthorGlyc
- Page 74 and 75: Background - Footwear to Reduce Ulc
- Page 76 and 77: period. In addition people without
- Page 78 and 79: Comparisons of in-shoe foot pressur
- Page 80 and 81: The rate of plantar callus formatio
- Page 82 and 83: Evidence Table: Section 10AuthorFoo
- Page 84 and 85: Background - Foot Clinics and Multi
- Page 86 and 87: A prospective non randomised contro
- Page 88 and 89: Summary - Foot Clinics and Multi-di
- Page 90 and 91: Section 12: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
- Page 92 and 93: and/or osteomyelitis; III - fore-fo
- Page 94 and 95: Summary - Economic consequences•
- Page 96 and 97: Section 13: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
- Page 98 and 99: Some ethnic groups are associated w
- Page 100 and 101: Evidence Table: Section 13AuthorSoc
- Page 102 and 103: Calle-Pascual AL, Duran A, Diaz A,
- Page 104 and 105: Jannink MJ, van Dijk H, de Vries J,
- Page 106 and 107: Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The 14-
Background - Patient Education <strong>and</strong> <strong>Foot</strong> DiseaseAn <strong>in</strong>tegral part <strong>of</strong> any strategy to reduce diabetes foot problems requires people withdiabetes to have adequate knowledge to be able to take appropriate action to m<strong>in</strong>imisetheir risk <strong>of</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g foot complications (Lev<strong>in</strong>, 1995). Deficiencies <strong>in</strong> self care <strong>of</strong>feet can occur because people with diabetes have received <strong>in</strong>adequate <strong>in</strong>formation orare not aware <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong>, or are unable to perform, foot self care behaviour.One study showed that 89% <strong>of</strong> people with diabetes whose feet are at <strong>in</strong>creased riskwere mak<strong>in</strong>g multiple errors <strong>in</strong> their foot self care behaviour (Plummer & Albert,1995). Unfortunately the healthcare system does not currently provide easilyaccessible education or podiatry services for people with diabetes whose feet are “atrisk” (Fletton et al, 1995). Those who are physically unable to practice self footcaredue to age or a disability, like visual impairment, are <strong>of</strong>ten dependent on family orcarers who must also be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the educational process. Also people with a lowersocio-economic status have <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>of</strong> foot ulceration <strong>and</strong> poorly fitt<strong>in</strong>g (or lack<strong>of</strong>) footwear (Day & Harkless, 1997).The extent <strong>and</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> the education necessary to prevent the development <strong>of</strong>diabetic foot problems <strong>and</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g an appropriate educational strategyfor each person is another important consideration. There is a general lack <strong>of</strong>consistency <strong>of</strong> educational <strong>in</strong>terventions which have used different methods, targetgroups, sett<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> follow-up which has complicated <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>of</strong>educational studies (Mason et al, 1999).Even the most successful published footcare education programmes have not alwayscont<strong>in</strong>ued to be used <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>stitutions where they were developed (Pichert & Penha,1993). <strong>Foot</strong>care education programmes should be coord<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>and</strong> not provideeducation to people with diabetes but staff should also receive education <strong>and</strong>prompt<strong>in</strong>g to perform rout<strong>in</strong>e footcare tasks.Evidence - Patient Education <strong>and</strong> <strong>Foot</strong> Disease<strong>Foot</strong>care education for people with diabetes improves knowledge <strong>and</strong> mayimprove self care behaviourValk et al (2002) conducted a Cochrane systematic review through search<strong>in</strong>gMedl<strong>in</strong>e, CINAHL <strong>and</strong> EMBASE, h<strong>and</strong> search<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> wound care journals <strong>and</strong>relevant conference proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> identified 8 prospective r<strong>and</strong>omised controlledtrials which evaluated educational programmes for the prevention <strong>of</strong> foot ulcers <strong>in</strong>people with <strong>Type</strong> 1 or 2 diabetes. Four RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tensive with briefeducational <strong>in</strong>terventions were identified (Barth et al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992;Ronnemaa et al, 1997; Malone et al, 1989). All four were performed <strong>in</strong> an outpatientcare sett<strong>in</strong>g. Patients' knowledge <strong>of</strong> foot care was reported <strong>in</strong> 3 <strong>of</strong> the 4 RCTs (Barthet al, 1991; Kruger et al, 1992; Ronnemaa et al, 1997). This outcome was significantlyimproved <strong>in</strong> 2 <strong>of</strong> the RCTs, at 6 months <strong>in</strong> one (Barth et al, 1991) <strong>and</strong> at 1 year <strong>in</strong> theother (Ronnemaa et al, 1997). In one RCT, foot care knowledge was not improved <strong>in</strong>the <strong>in</strong>tervention group at 6 months follow up (Kruger et al, 1992). However, this RCTstudied small groups (23 patients <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tervention group <strong>and</strong> 27 <strong>in</strong> the controlgroup), <strong>and</strong> also had a relatively high dropout rate.59