Review and Evaluation of European National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Management of Active Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy in Diabetes Using the AGREE-II Tool Identifies an Absence of Evidence-Based Recommendations.

Background: Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CNO) is a rare but devastating complication of diabetes associated with high rates of morbidity; yet, many nonfoot specialists are unaware of it, resulting in missed and delayed diagnosis. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have proven useful in improving quality of care and standardizing practice in diabetes and diabetic foot care. However, little is known about the consistency in recommendations for identification and management of active CNO. Aim: The aim of this study is to review European national diabetes CPGs for the diagnosis and management of active CNO and to assess their methodological rigor and transparency. Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify diabetes national CPGs across Europe. Guidelines in any language were reviewed to explore whether they provided a definition for active CNO and recommendations for diagnosis, monitoring, and management. Methodological rigor and transparency were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool, which comprises 23 key items organized within six domains with an overall guideline assessment score of ≥ 60% considered to be of adequate quality to recommend use. Each guideline was assessed by two reviewers, and inter-rater agreement (Kendall's W) was calculated for AGREE-II scores. Results: Seventeen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. Breadth of CNO content varied across guidelines (median (IQR) word count: 327; Q1 = 151; Q3 = 790), and 53% provided a definition for active CNO. Recommendations for diagnosis and monitoring were provided by 82% and 53%, respectively, with offloading being the most common management recommendation (88%). Four guidelines (24%) reached threshold for recommendation for use in clinical practice (≥ 60%) with the scope and purpose domain scoring highest (mean (SD): 67%, ± 23%). The remaining domains had average scores ranging between 19% and 53%. Inter-rater agreement was strong (W = 0.882; p < 0.001). Conclusions: European national CPGs for diabetes provide limited recommendations on active CNO. All guidelines showcased deficits in their methodology, suggesting that more rigorous methods should be employed for diabetes CPG development across Europe.

Implementing an integrated diabetic foot care programme in Ireland: podiatrists' experience.

BACKGROUND: International evidence suggests that an integrated multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot management is necessary to prevent ulceration and progression to amputation. Many health systems have introduced policies or models of care supporting the introduction of this evidence into practice, but little is known about the experiences of those involved in implementation. This study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of podiatrists providing integrated diabetic foot care. METHODS: Between October 2017 and April 2018, an online survey comprising closed and open-ended questions on podiatrists' demographics, clinical activity, links with other services, continuous professional development activities and experiences of implementing the Model of Care was administered to podiatrists (n = 73) working for Ireland's Health Service Executive in the community and hospital setting. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 68% (n = 50), with 46% (n = 23), 38% (n = 19) and 16% (n = 8) working across hospital, community and both settings, respectively. Most reported treating high-risk patients (66%), those with active foot disease (61%) and educating people about the risk of diabetes to the lower limb (80%). Reported challenges towards integrated diabetic foot care include a perceived lack of awareness of the role of podiatry amongst other healthcare professionals, poor integration between hospital and community podiatry services, especially where new services had been developed, and insufficient number of podiatrists to meet service demands. CONCLUSION: Previous evidence has shown that there is often a gap between what is set out by a policy and what it looks like when delivered to service users. Results from the current study support this, highlighting that while most podiatrists work in line with national recommendations, there are specific gaps and challenges that need to be addressed to ensure successful policy implementation.

A scoping review protocol to map the evidence on the risks and benefits of population based diabetic foot screening.

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are one of the most common lower extremity complications of diabetes, with the lifetime risk of a person developing a DFU estimated to be as high as 34%. It is recommended that those with diabetes receive an annual review of their feet, by a trained healthcare professional, to identify risk factors for ulceration and allow for subsequent risk stratification, patient education and provision of appropriate care to prevent ulceration and amputation. Internationally, while many countries have a diabetic foot care pathway, it is not a structured population health screening programme unlike other areas of preventive care for people with diabetes such as retinopathy screening. A structured diabetic foot screening pathway could allow for earlier identification of the at-risk foot. However, the introduction of any population screening programme should meet the Wilson and Jungner principles of screening. This paper presents a protocol for a scoping review of existing evidence on screening for the at-risk-foot against the Wilson and Junger principles. Methods: The scoping review will be conducted in line with the six-stage methodological framework by Arksey & O'Mally and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Medline (EBSCO), Scopus, ScienceDirect and EMBASE databases will be searched. Studies relating to the burden of diabetic foot ulcers, their pathophysiology and screening tests for peripheral neuropathy and peripheral artery disease, and screening programmes will be included. A data extraction tool will be used to facilitate a chronological narrative synthesis of results. Results: These will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Conclusion: This scoping review will evaluate and map the evidence surrounding diabetic foot ulcers using the Wilson and Jungner principles of screening as a framework.