Cargando…

Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease

BACKGROUND: Wound classification systems are useful tools to characterise diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and are utilised for the purpose of clinical assessment, to promote effective communication between health professionals, and to support clinical audit and benchmarking. Australian guidelines...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamilton, Emma J., Scheepers, Joanna, Ryan, Hayley, Perrin, Byron M., Charles, James, Cheney, Jane, Twigg, Stephen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8641146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34861898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00503-6
_version_ 1784609449045917696
author Hamilton, Emma J.
Scheepers, Joanna
Ryan, Hayley
Perrin, Byron M.
Charles, James
Cheney, Jane
Twigg, Stephen M.
author_facet Hamilton, Emma J.
Scheepers, Joanna
Ryan, Hayley
Perrin, Byron M.
Charles, James
Cheney, Jane
Twigg, Stephen M.
author_sort Hamilton, Emma J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Wound classification systems are useful tools to characterise diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and are utilised for the purpose of clinical assessment, to promote effective communication between health professionals, and to support clinical audit and benchmarking. Australian guidelines regarding wound classification in patients with DFU are outdated. We aimed to adapt existing international guidelines for wound classification to develop new evidence-based Australian guidelines for wound classification in people with diabetes and DFU. METHODS: Recommended NHRMC procedures were followed to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on wound classification to the Australian health context. Five IWGDF wound classification recommendations were evaluated and assessed according to the ADAPTE and GRADE systems. We compared our judgements with IWGDF judgements to decide if recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in an Australian context. We re-evaluated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings, provided justifications for the recommendation and outlined any special considerations for implementation, subgroups, monitoring and future research in an Australian setting. RESULTS: After the five recommendations from the IWGDF 2019 guidelines on the classification of DFUs were evaluated by the panel, two were adopted and three were adapted to be more suitable for Australia. The main reasons for adapting, were to align the recommendations to existing Australian standards of care, especially in specialist settings, to maintain consistency with existing recommendations for documentation, audit and benchmarking and to be more appropriate, acceptable and applicable to an Australian context. In Australia, we recommend the use of the SINBAD system as a minimum standard to document the characteristics of a DFU for the purposes of communication among health professionals and for regional/national/international audit. In contrast to the IWGDF who recommend against usage, in Australia we recommend caution in the use of existing wound classification systems to provide an individual prognosis for a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed new guidelines for wound classification for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer that are appropriate and applicable for use across diverse care settings and geographical locations in Australia. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00503-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8641146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86411462021-12-03 Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease Hamilton, Emma J. Scheepers, Joanna Ryan, Hayley Perrin, Byron M. Charles, James Cheney, Jane Twigg, Stephen M. J Foot Ankle Res Methodology BACKGROUND: Wound classification systems are useful tools to characterise diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and are utilised for the purpose of clinical assessment, to promote effective communication between health professionals, and to support clinical audit and benchmarking. Australian guidelines regarding wound classification in patients with DFU are outdated. We aimed to adapt existing international guidelines for wound classification to develop new evidence-based Australian guidelines for wound classification in people with diabetes and DFU. METHODS: Recommended NHRMC procedures were followed to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on wound classification to the Australian health context. Five IWGDF wound classification recommendations were evaluated and assessed according to the ADAPTE and GRADE systems. We compared our judgements with IWGDF judgements to decide if recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in an Australian context. We re-evaluated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings, provided justifications for the recommendation and outlined any special considerations for implementation, subgroups, monitoring and future research in an Australian setting. RESULTS: After the five recommendations from the IWGDF 2019 guidelines on the classification of DFUs were evaluated by the panel, two were adopted and three were adapted to be more suitable for Australia. The main reasons for adapting, were to align the recommendations to existing Australian standards of care, especially in specialist settings, to maintain consistency with existing recommendations for documentation, audit and benchmarking and to be more appropriate, acceptable and applicable to an Australian context. In Australia, we recommend the use of the SINBAD system as a minimum standard to document the characteristics of a DFU for the purposes of communication among health professionals and for regional/national/international audit. In contrast to the IWGDF who recommend against usage, in Australia we recommend caution in the use of existing wound classification systems to provide an individual prognosis for a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed new guidelines for wound classification for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer that are appropriate and applicable for use across diverse care settings and geographical locations in Australia. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00503-6. BioMed Central 2021-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8641146/ /pubmed/34861898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00503-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Hamilton, Emma J.
Scheepers, Joanna
Ryan, Hayley
Perrin, Byron M.
Charles, James
Cheney, Jane
Twigg, Stephen M.
Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title_full Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title_fullStr Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title_full_unstemmed Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title_short Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
title_sort australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8641146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34861898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00503-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hamiltonemmaj australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT scheepersjoanna australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT ryanhayley australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT perrinbyronm australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT charlesjames australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT cheneyjane australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT twiggstephenm australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease
AT australianguidelineonwoundclassificationofdiabetesrelatedfootulcerspartofthe2021australianevidencebasedguidelinesfordiabetesrelatedfootdisease