Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Nursing
Date Submitted: Jan 12, 2023
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 4, 2023 - Mar 1, 2023
Date Accepted: Jun 7, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Experiences of a novel structured foot examination form for patients with diabetes from a healthcare professional’s perspective: a qualitative study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Diabetes is a growing threat to public health. Secondary diseases like foot complications are common. Foot ulcers affect the individual’s quality of life and are a great cost to society. Regular foot examinations prevent foot ulcers and are a recommended intervention, both in Sweden and worldwide. Despite existing guidelines, there are differences in the execution of the foot exam which cause care inequality. A structured foot exam form based on current guidelines was developed in this study, as a first step towards digitalised support in daily routine, and was validated by diabetes healthcare professionals.
Objective:
The study aimed to validate a structured foot exam form, by assessing healthcare professionals’ experiences of working with it, “foot-side”, when examining patients with diabetes.
Methods:
Semi-structured interviews were held in a focus group and individually with eight informants from different diabetes professions who were interviewed regarding their experiences of working with the form in clinical practice. The users’ data were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis. The study is part of a larger project entitled “Optimised care of persons with diabetes and foot complications”, with Västra Götaland Region as the responsible healthcare authority, where the results will be further developed.
Results:
Experiences of working with the form were that it simplified the foot exam by giving it an overview and a clear structure. Using the form made differences in work routines between individuals apparent. It was believed that implementing the form routinely would contribute to a more uniform execution. When the patient had foot ulcers, the risk categories (established in guidelines) were perceived as contradictory. There was uncertainty about the definition of chronic ulcers and callosities, for example. The expectations were that the future digital format would simplify documentation and elucidate the foot exam, as well as contributing to the accessibility of updated and relevant data for all concerned.
Conclusions:
The foot exam form works well as a support during the preventive foot exam, creates a basis for decision-making and could contribute to a uniform, safer foot exam with more care equality in agreement with current guidelines. Clinical Trial: to be continued
Citation
The author of this paper has made a PDF available, but requires the user to login, or create an account.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.