The objective of this study was to assess the viability and acceptability of an innovative Virtual Wound Care Command Centre where patients in the community, and their treating clinicians, have access to an expert wound specialist service that comprises a digitally enabled application for wound analysis, decision‐making, remote consultation, and monitoring. Fifty‐one patients with chronic wounds from 9 centres, encompassing hospital services, outpatient clinics, and community nurses in one metropolitan and rural state in Australia, were enrolled and a total of 61 wounds were analysed over 7 months. Patients received, on average, an occasion of service every 4.4 days, with direct queries responded to in a median time of 1.5 hours. During the study period, 26 (42.6%) wounds were healed, with a median time to healing of 66 (95% CI: 56‐88) days. All patients reported high satisfaction with their wound care, 86.4% of patients recommended the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre with 84.1% of patients reporting the digital wound application as easy to use. Potential mean travel savings of $99.65 for rural patients per visit were recognised. The data revealed that the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre was a viable and acceptable patient‐centred expert wound consultation service for chronic wound patients in the community.

No abstract

Diabetes-related foot ulceration is a frequent cause for hospital admission and the leading cause of nontraumatic lower limb amputation, placing a high burden on the health system, patient, and their families. Considerable advances in treatments and the establishment of specialized services and teams have improved healing rates and reduced unnecessary amputations. However, amputation rates remain high in some areas, with unacceptable variations within countries yet to be resolved. Specific risk factors including infection, ischemia, ulcer size, depth, and duration as well as probing to bone (or osteomyelitis), location of ulcer, sensory loss, deformity (and high plantar pressure), advanced age, number of ulcers present, and renal disease are associated with poor outcome and delayed healing. To assist in prediction of difficult-to-heal ulcers, more than 13 classification systems have been developed. Ulcer depth (or size), infection, and ischemia are the most common risk factors identified. High-quality treatment protocols and guidelines exist to facilitate best practice in the standard of care. Under these conditions, 66%-77% of foot ulcers will heal. The remaining proportion represents a group unlikely to heal and who will live with a non-healing wound or undergo amputation. The authors have applied their experience of managing patients in this discussion of why some ulcers are harder to heal. The article explores the effects of patient non-adherence to treatment, comorbid mental illness, a failure of research to be translated into the everyday practice of many clinicians, and the impact of delayed access to specialized treatment. These factors when combined with the main published risk factors of size, infection, ischemia and pressure are perceived as critical barriers to healing.

Background Medical grade footwear (MGF) with demonstrated plantar-pressure reducing effect is recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU). Efficacy of MGF relies on high adherence (≥ 80%). In-shoe pressure analysis (IPA) is used to assess and modify MGF, however, there is limited evidence for the impact on patient adherence and understanding of MGF. The primary aim of this study was to determine if self-reported adherence to MGF usage in patients with previous DFU improved following IPA compared to adherence measured prior. The secondary aim was to determine if patient understanding of MGF improved following in-shoe pressure analysis. Methods Patients with previous DFU fitted with MGF in the last 12 months were recruited. The first three participants were included in a pilot study to test procedures and questionnaires. MGF was assessed and modified at Week 0 based on findings from IPA using the Pedar system (Novel). Patients completed two questionnaires, one assessing patient adherence to MGF at Week 0 and Week 4, the other assessing patient understanding of MGF before and after IPA at week 0. Patient understanding was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). Patient experience was assessed via a telephone questionnaire administered between Weeks 0–1. Results Fifteen participants were recruited, and all completed the study. Adherence of ≥ 80% to MGF usage inside the home was 13.3% (n = 2) pre-IPA and 20.0% (n = 3) at Week 4. Outside the home, ≥ 80% adherence to MGF was 53.3% (n = 8) pre-IPA, and 80.0% (n = 12) at Week 4. Change in scores for understanding of MGF were small, however, all participants reported that undergoing the intervention was worthwhile and beneficial. Conclusions Self-reported adherence inside the home demonstrated minimal improvement after 4 weeks, however, adherence of ≥ 80% outside the home increased by 27%, with 80% of all participants reporting high adherence at Week 4. Participants rated their learnings from the experience of IPA as beneficial.

No abstract

Background Medical grade footwear (MGF) with demonstrated plantar-pressure reducing effect is recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU). Efficacy of MGF relies on high adherence (≥ 80%). In-shoe pressure analysis (IPA) is used to assess and modify MGF, however, there is limited evidence for the impact on patient adherence and understanding of MGF. The primary aim of this study was to determine if self-reported adherence to MGF usage in patients with previous DFU improved following IPA compared to adherence measured prior. The secondary aim was to determine if patient understanding of MGF improved following in-shoe pressure analysis. Methods Patients with previous DFU fitted with MGF in the last 12 months were recruited. The first three participants were included in a pilot study to test procedures and questionnaires. MGF was assessed and modified at Week 0 based on findings from IPA using the Pedar system (Novel). Patients completed two questionnaires, one assessing patient adherence to MGF at Week 0 and Week 4, the other assessing patient understanding of MGF before and after IPA at week 0. Patient understanding was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). Patient experience was assessed via a telephone questionnaire administered between Weeks 0–1. Results 15 participants were recruited, and all completed the study. Adherence of ≥ 80% to MGF usage inside the home was n = 2 (13.3%) pre-IPA and n = 3 (20.0%) at Week 4. Outside the home, ≥ 80% adherence to MGF was n = 8 (53.3%) pre-IPA, and n = 12 (80.0%) at Week 4. All participants reported that undergoing IPA improved their understanding of the value of MGF and that undergoing the intervention was worthwhile and beneficial. Conclusions Self-reported adherence inside the home demonstrated minimal improvement after 4 weeks, however, adherence of ≥ 80% outside the home increased by 27%, with 80% of all participants reporting high adherence at Week 4. Participants rated their learnings from the experience of IPA as beneficial.