What Are the Current Diabetic Foot Assessment Methods in Private Podiatry Practices in Flanders, Belgium: an Exploratory Mixed Method Study

Overview

Journal J Foot Ankle Res

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2023 Mar 27

PMID 36973800

Authors

Irene Vansteenland

Rachel Forss

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot assessments detect patients at risk for developing a diabetes-related foot ulceration and can significantly reduce the risk of amputation. In order to organize this assessment effectively, diabetic foot assessment guidelines are required according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. However, these international guidelines have not been adapted into a national guideline for podiatrists in Flanders, Belgium. This study aims to identify the methods and guidelines currently used to assess the diabetic foot in private podiatry practices in Flanders, Belgium and to explore the podiatrists' opinions on developing a national diabetic foot assessment guideline.

Methods: This exploratory mixed method study was composed of an anonymous online survey comprising of open- and closed-ended questions followed by 1:1 online semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited via e-mail and a closed private Facebook group of podiatry alumni. Data was analyzed using SPSS statistics and thematic analysis described by Braun and Clarke.

Results: This study showed that the vascular assessment of the diabetic foot exists solely of a medical history and palpation of the pedal pulses. Non-invasive tests such as doppler, toe brachial pressure index or ankle brachial pressure index are seldom used. Only 66% reported to use a guideline for the diabetic foot assessment. There was a variety of reported guidelines and risk stratification systems in use in private podiatry practices in Flanders, Belgium.

Conclusion: Non-invasive tests such as the doppler, ankle brachial pressure index or toe brachial pressure index are rarely used for the vascular assessment of the diabetic foot. Diabetic foot assessment guidelines and risk stratification systems to identify patients at risk for developing a diabetic foot ulcer were not frequently used. International guidelines of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot have not yet been implemented in private podiatry practices in Flanders, Belgium. This exploratory research has provided useful information for future research studies.

Citing Articles

Artificial Intelligence for Diabetic Foot Screening Based on Digital Image Analysis: A Systematic Review.

Anggreni N, Kristianto H, Handayani D, Yueniwati Y, Irawan P, Rosandi R J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025; :19322968251317521.

PMID: 39960227 PMC: 11833800. DOI: 10.1177/19322968251317521.

References

Normahani P, Poushpas S, Alaa M, Bravis V, Sounderajah V, Aslam M . Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-care Tests Used to Detect Arterial Disease in Diabetes: TEsting for Arterial Disease in Diabetes (TrEAD) Study. Ann Surg. 2021; 276(5):e605-e612. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004545. View

Parker C, van Netten J, Parker T, Jia L, Corcoran H, Garrett M . Differences between national and international guidelines for the management of diabetic foot disease. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2018; 35(2):e3101. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3101. View

Armstrong D, Boulton A, Bus S . Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Their Recurrence. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(24):2367-2375. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1615439. View

Lavery L, Hunt N, Lafontaine J, Baxter C, Ndip A, Boulton A . Diabetic foot prevention: a neglected opportunity in high-risk patients. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(7):1460-2. PMC: 2890341. DOI: 10.2337/dc10-0310. View

Meijer J, Links T, Smit A, Groothoff J, Eisma W . Evaluation of a screening and prevention programme for diabetic foot complications. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001; 25(2):132-8. DOI: 10.1080/03093640108726586. View

Tehan P, Bray A, Chuter V . Non-invasive vascular assessment in the foot with diabetes: sensitivity and specificity of the ankle brachial index, toe brachial index and continuous wave Doppler for detecting peripheral arterial disease. J Diabetes Complications. 2015; 30(1):155-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.07.019. View

Schaper N . Diabetic foot ulcer classification system for research purposes: a progress report on criteria for including patients in research studies. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2004; 20 Suppl 1:S90-5. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.464. View

Paisey R, Abbott A, Levenson R, Harrington A, Browne D, Moore J . Diabetes-related major lower limb amputation incidence is strongly related to diabetic foot service provision and improves with enhancement of services: peer review of the South-West of England. Diabet Med. 2017; 35(1):53-62. PMC: 5765400. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13512. View

Everett E, Mathioudakis N . Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018; 1411(1):153-165. PMC: 5793889. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13569. View

10.

Tehan P, Chuter V . Vascular assessment techniques of podiatrists in Australia and New Zealand: a web-based survey. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015; 8:71. PMC: 4673851. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-015-0130-5. View

11.

Morbach S, Furchert H, Groblinghoff U, Hoffmeier H, Kersten K, Klauke G . Long-term prognosis of diabetic foot patients and their limbs: amputation and death over the course of a decade. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(10):2021-7. PMC: 3447849. DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0200. View

12.

Leese G, Reid F, Green V, McAlpine R, Cunningham S, Emslie-Smith A . Stratification of foot ulcer risk in patients with diabetes: a population-based study. Int J Clin Pract. 2006; 60(5):541-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2006.00899.x. View

13.

Blanchette V, Patry J, Brousseau-Foley M . Adequacy Between Canadian Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations Compared With International Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Can J Diabetes. 2021; 45(8):761-767.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2021.03.004. View

14.

Schaper N, van Netten J, Apelqvist J, Bus S, Hinchliffe R, Lipsky B . Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020; 36 Suppl 1:e3266. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3266. View

15.

Formosa C, Gatt A, Chockalingam N . A Critical Evaluation of Existing Diabetic Foot Screening Guidelines. Rev Diabet Stud. 2016; 13(2-3):158-186. PMC: 5553765. DOI: 10.1900/RDS.2016.13.158. View

16.

Tehan P, Fox M, Stewart S, Matthews S, Chuter V . Lower limb vascular assessment techniques of podiatrists in the United Kingdom: a national survey. J Foot Ankle Res. 2019; 12:31. PMC: 6530165. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-019-0341-2. View

17.

Bus S, Lavery L, Monteiro-Soares M, Rasmussen A, Raspovic A, Sacco I . Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020; 36 Suppl 1:e3269. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3269. View

18.

Jude E, Oyibo S, Chalmers N, Boulton A . Peripheral arterial disease in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: a comparison of severity and outcome. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24(8):1433-7. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.8.1433. View

19.

Apelqvist J, Larsson J . What is the most effective way to reduce incidence of amputation in the diabetic foot?. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2000; 16 Suppl 1:S75-83. DOI: 10.1002/1520-7560(200009/10)16:1+<::aid-dmrr139>3.0.co;2-8. View

20.

Hewitt-Taylor J . Clinical guidelines and care protocols. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2004; 20(1):45-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2003.08.002. View