ObjectiveThe aims of this point-prevalence study were to investigate a representative inpatient population to determine the prevalence of people admitted to hospital for the reason of a foot-related condition, and identify associated independent factors.MethodsParticipants were adult inpatients in 5 different representative hospitals, admitted for any reason on the day of data collection. Maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired inpatients were excluded. Participants were surveyed on a range of self-reported demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot disease history, self-care, footwear, past foot treatment prior to hospitalisation and reason for admission variables. Physical examinations were performed to clinically diagnose a range of foot disease and foot risk factor variables. Independent factors associated with being admitted to hospital for the primary or secondary reason of a foot-related condition were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.ResultsOverall, 733 participants were included; mean (SD) age 62 (19) years, male 55.8%. Foot-related conditions were the primary reason for admission in 54 participants (7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.5%)); 36 for foot disease (4.9%), 15 foot trauma (2.1%). Being admitted for the primary reason of a foot-related condition was independently associated with foot infection, critical peripheral arterial disease, foot trauma and past foot treatment by a general practitioner and surgeon (p<0.01). Foot-related conditions were a secondary reason for admission in 28 participants (3.8% (2.6% to 5.6%)), and were independently associated with diabetes and current foot ulcer (p<0.01).ConclusionsThis study, the first in a representative inpatient population, suggests the direct inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions is significantly higher than previously appreciated. Findings indicate 1 in every 13 inpatients was primarily admitted because of a foot-related condition with most due to foot disease or foot trauma. Future strategies are recommended to investigate and intervene in the considerable inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions.

The aims of this study were to investigate the point prevalence, and associated independent factors, for foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) in a representative hospitalised population. We included 733 (83%) of 883 eligible adult inpatients across five representative Australian hospitals on one day. We collected an extensive range of self-reported characteristics from participants. We examined all participants to clinically diagnose foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) and amputation procedures. Overall, 72 participants (9·8%) [95% confidence interval (CI):7·2-11·3%] had foot disease. Foot ulcers, in 49 participants (6·7%), were independently associated with peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·05). Foot infections, in 24 (3·3%), were independently associated with previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Ischaemia, in 33 (4·5%), was independently associated with older age, smokers and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Amputation procedures, in 14 (1·9%), were independently associated with foot infections (P < 0·01). We found that one in every ten inpatients had foot disease, and less than half of those had diabetes. After adjusting for diabetes, factors linked with foot disease were similar to those identified in diabetes-related literature. The overall inpatient foot disease burden is similar in size to well-known medical conditions and should receive similar attention.

BackgroundFoot disease complications, such as foot ulcers and infection, contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality. These complications are typically precipitated by “high-risk factors”, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. High-risk factors are more prevalent in specific “at risk” populations such as diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. To the best of the authors’ knowledge a tool capturing multiple high-risk factors and foot disease complications in multiple at risk populations has yet to be tested. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool.MethodsThe study was conducted in two phases. Phase one developed a QHRFF using an existing diabetes foot disease tool, literature searches, stakeholder groups and expert panel. Phase two tested the QHRFF for validity and reliability. Four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited to test validity and reliability. Three cohorts of patients were recruited; one tested criterion measure reliability (n = 32), another tested criterion validity and inter-rater reliability (n = 43), and another tested intra-rater reliability (n = 19). Validity was determined using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Reliability was determined using Kappa, weighted Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics.ResultsA QHRFF tool containing 46 items across seven domains was developed. Criterion measure reliability of at least moderate categories of agreement (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 91% (29 of 32) tested items. Criterion validity of at least moderate categories (PPV > 0.7) was seen in 83% (60 of 72) tested items. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of at least moderate categories (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 88% (84 of 96) and 87% (20 of 23) tested items respectively.ConclusionsThe QHRFF had acceptable validity and reliability across the majority of items; particularly items identifying relevant co-morbidities, high-risk factors and foot disease complications. Recommendations have been made to improve or remove identified weaker items for future QHRFF versions. Overall, the QHRFF possesses suitable practicality, validity and reliability to assess and capture relevant foot disease items across multiple at risk populations.

BackgroundNurses are at high risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Although the prevalence of MSDs of the lower back, upper limbs, neck and shoulders have been reported previously in nursing, few studies have evaluated MSDs of the foot and ankle. This study evaluated the prevalence of foot and ankle MSDs in nurses and their relation to individual and workplace risk factors.MethodsA self-administered survey incorporating the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) was distributed, over a nine-week period, to all eligible nurses (n = 416) working in a paediatric hospital in Brisbane, Australia. The prevalence of MSDs for each of the NMQ body regions was determined. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between activity-limiting foot/ankle MSDs and risk factors related to the individual (age, body mass index, number of existing foot conditions, smoking history, general physical health [SF36 Physical Component Scale], footwear features) or the workplace (level of nursing position, work location, average hours worked, hours worked in previous week, time since last break from work).ResultsA 73% response rate was achieved with 304 nurses completing surveys, of whom 276 were females (91%). Mean age of the nurses was 37 years (±10), younger than the state average of 43 years. Foot/ankle MSDs were the most prevalent conditions experienced by nurses during the preceding seven days (43.8%, 95% CI 38.2-49.4%), the second most prevalent MSDs to impair physical activity (16.7%, 95% CI 13.0-21.3%), and the third most prevalent MSD, after lower-back and neck problems, during the preceding 12 months (55.3%, 95% CI 49.6-60.7%). Of the nurse and work characteristics investigated, obesity, poor general physical health, existing foot conditions and working in the intensive care unit emerged as statistically significant (p < 0.05) independent risk factors for activity-limiting foot/ankle MSDs.ConclusionsFoot/ankle MSDs are common in paediatric hospital nurses and resulted in physical activity limitations in one out of every six nurses. We recommend targeted education programs regarding the prevention, self-management and treatment strategies for foot/ankle MSDs. Further research is needed into the impact of work location and extended shift durations on foot/ankle MSDs.

ObjectiveTo systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity).MethodsA systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available.ResultsOf the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001).ConclusionsThis review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates.