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

australiandiabetescouncil.com
from australiandiabetescouncil.com More from this publisher
10.07.2015 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!