Use of hand‐held Doppler ultrasound examination by podiatrists: a reliability study

BackgroundWe aimed to investigate podiatry practice in diagnosing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in diabetes, decision making once PAD is suspected and limitations of referral pathways.MethodsA survey, comprising 26 questions was distributed to podiatrists across the UK via mailing lists of collaborating organizations including the College of Podiatry (UK). Response rates were estimated based on NHS workforce data. Analysis of responses from the open-ended questions was performed using inductive content analysis.ResultsData from 283 respondents were analyzed. Response rate for all NHS podiatrists across the UK was estimated to be 6%. For the detection of arterial disease only 18.8% (n = 49/260) of participants reported using a full combination of history, pulse palpation, Doppler and ABPI assessment. Self-reported confidence in detecting arterial disease was highest amongst podiatrists who felt they had received adequate training compared to podiatrists who felt they had not (median 85 (IQR 75–90) vs 67 (50–77), respectively; p < 0.001) as well as those who see > 20 diabetic patients per week compared to those who see < 20 (median 80 (IQR 70–90) vs 72 (60–82.8), respectively; p < 0.001). Over one third of respondents (35.8%, n = 93/260) were aware of missed cases of PAD in the past year and 17.5% (n = 38/217) believed that this resulted in an amputation in some cases.The survey highlighted a lack of clarity amongst podiatrists regarding referral guidelines. Additionally, 69% (n = 169/242) reported that their patients had to wait longer than 2-weeks for specialist vascular assessment and 67.6% (n = 54/80) reported similar waits for a Duplex Ultrasound scan. There was a statistically significant variation in DUS waiting time across the UK (X2 (10, N = 80) = 21.59, p = 0.017). Inability to make a direct referral to vascular services and long delays were reported as major limitations of the referral pathway.ConclusionWe have identified important targets for further investigation and quality improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-018-0270-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of peripheral arterial disease in diabetes: a national survey of podiatry practice in the United Kingdom

Normahani

Mustafa

Standfield

et al. 2018

“…Where the use of vascular hand-held Doppler by podiatrists has been reviewed, it has been found in one study that ability to interpret different waveform signals was reasonable, although practitioners expressed concern over their own competence, citing a lack of specific knowledge, training or experience [ 14 ]. Another study has shown poor reliability around interpretation, when looking at both visual and audible waveforms; the need for clinicians to engage in regular and ongoing education was highlighted [ 15 ]. This issue is not specific to podiatrists, as shown by a study looking at variability amongst sonography professionals [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of ultrasound practice amongst podiatrists in the UK

Siddle

Patience

Coughtrey

et al. 2018

BackgroundUltrasound in podiatry practice encompasses musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging, vascular hand-held Doppler ultrasound and therapeutic ultrasound. Sonography practice is not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), with no requirement to hold a formal qualification. The College of Podiatry does not currently define ultrasound training and competencies.This study aimed to determine the current use of ultrasound, training received and mentorship received and/or provided by podiatrists using ultrasound.MethodsA quantitative study utilising a cross-sectional, on-line, single-event survey was undertaken within the UK.ResultsCompleted surveys were received from 284 podiatrists; 173 (70%) use ultrasound as part of their general practice, 139 (49%) for musculoskeletal problems, 131 (46%) for vascular assessment and 39 (14%) to support their surgical practice. Almost a quarter (n = 62) worked for more than one organisation; 202 (71%) were employed by the NHS and/or private sector (n = 118, 41%).Nearly all (93%) respondents report using a hand-held vascular Doppler in their daily practice; 216 (82%) to support decisions regarding treatment options, 102 (39%) to provide diagnostic reports for other health professionals, and 34 (13%) to guide nerve blocks.Ultrasound imaging was used by 104 (37%) respondents primarily to aid clinical decision making (n = 81) and guide interventions (steroid injections n = 67; nerve blocks n = 39). Ninety-three percent stated they use ultrasound imaging to treat their own patients, while others scan at the request of other podiatrists (n = 28) or health professionals (n = 18). Few use ultrasound imaging for research (n = 7) or education (n = 2).Only 32 (11%) respondents (n = 20 private sector) use therapeutic ultrasound to treat patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, namely tendon pathologies.Few respondents (18%) had completed formal post-graduate CASE (Consortium for the Accreditation of Sonographic Education) accredited ultrasound courses.Forty (14%) respondents receive ultrasound mentorship; the majority from fellow podiatrists (n = 17) or medical colleagues (n = 15). Over half (n = 127) who do not have ultrasound mentorship indicated they would like a mentor predominantly for ultrasound imaging. Fifty-five (19%) report they currently provide ultrasound mentorship for others.ConclusionsUnderstanding the scope of ultrasound practice, the training undertaken and the requirements for mentorship will underpin the development of competencies and recommendations defined by the College of Podiatry to support professional development and ensure safe practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-018-0263-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

“…An abnormal result was defined as a participant identifying less than seven out of ten sites on any foot [14]. Vascular assessment was performed via a Doppler assessment of the dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial arteries [15], using a bi-directional hand-held Doppler (Hadeco© ES-100 V3 8 mHz). An abnormal result was defined as the presence of monophasic waveforms for either artery of the left or right foot [16].…”

Section: Clinical Foot Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foot health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in regional and rural NSW, Australia

West

Sadler

Hawke

et al. 2020

Background: Foot health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians' has not been established. Additionally, studies have shown that there is a lack of engagement of this population with general preventive foot care services. The aim of this study was to establish foot health in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people attending two recently developed, culturally safe podiatry services in rural and regional New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Secondarily the relationship between self-perceived foot health and some medical and demographic characteristics was investigated. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included participants attending the culturally safe foot health care services managed by the University of Newcastle on the Central Coast or in Wellington, both located in NSW, Australia. At the consultation, participants completed the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) with the assistance of an Aboriginal health care worker, underwent basic vascular and neurological screening, and podiatric treatment. Results: A total of 111 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (48 from the Central Coast, and 63 from Wellington) were included. FHSQ scores for pain (75.7 ± 26.8), function (80.2 ± 25.2), footwear (53.9 ± 33.4), and general foot health (62.0 ± 30.9) were generally good, but below the optimal score of 100. The presence of diabetes (n = 39 of 111 participants or 35.1%) was associated with lower levels of self-perceived foot function (r = − 0.20, n = 107, p = 0.04). Conclusion: We found that community-based foot health care services that are culturally safe are utilised by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples not currently at high risk of foot complications. This supports the use of culturally safe foot care services to improve engagement with preventative foot care. Future research should continue to be driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and investigate ways to implement additional screening measures and undertake prospective evaluation of the impact of such services on health related outcomes in these communities.