Search

Background: The UK medicines legislation was amended ten years ago (2013) to allow podiatrists and physiotherapists independent prescribing rights, the first of the allied health professions to do so. Non-medical prescribing formed one part of a broader policy agenda promoting role flexibility in response to the challenge of an ageing population and the need to maintain effective health provision in the face of a contracting workforce. Aim: The aim of this study was to outline the experiences of the Department of Health AHP medicines project board team in working towards independent prescribing for podiatry and physiotherapy, with a particular focus on the challenges encountered. Methods: In depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with eight of the core members of the project team, drawn from those individuals who served throughout the duration of the project (2010–2013). Included were the former Department of Health Chief and Deputy Chief Allied Health Professions Officers; the Department of Health Engagement and Communications Officer; representatives of the Health and Care Professions Council; the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; the Council of Deans of Health; the Royal College of Podiatry and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (The team also included the representative of the Allied Health Professions Federation. However, as that representative is also a researcher in this study, he has recused himself from any role as a participant.). Data were transcribed and subject to a thematic analysis. Results: A complex picture of the project emerged revealing a range of obstacles and challenges, including inter-professional role boundary tensions and negative prior assumptions about the two professions. Success hinged upon the adoption of a dual strategy involving submission of a robust case of need focused on patient benefit coupled with the careful management of professional expectations. Underpinning theory from the sociology of the professions offers a supportive explanatory framework for understanding the relationships between the various stakeholders involved. Conclusions: Ultimately, success depended upon aligning the project aims with healthcare policy through a clear focus on patient benefit. Balancing competing professional and policy demands through a continual emphasis on improved patient care laid the foundations for future projects by other allied health professions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Currently, wound management decisions are based largely on visual observations such as photographs, descriptors or measurements which can lack detail and do not always capture the sub-wound area. A previous case series suggests that there is benefit in using ultrasound imaging (USI) to evaluate diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) at point-of-care, however no guidance exists to inform its use. This scoping exercise explores the capacity of podiatrists with experience in interpreting musculoskeletal structures using USI to interpret sonographic images of DFU. Methods: Following a short briefing session, podiatrists with previous musculoskeletal (MSK) USI training were asked to review and report on previously recorded static sonographic images (n = 8) of active DFU. Content analysis was utilised to identify recurring keywords within the podiatrists' reports which were coded and assigned to categories to gain context to the data. Results: Seven podiatrists participated in the study. Four categories were constructed for the purposes of analysis: Frequency of reporting, 2) Language used in reporting, 3) Observations, 4) Clinical impression Frequently, the reported findings between podiatrists were found to be similar, especially those related to bone morphology. However greater variability was seen in the reporting of wound specific soft-tissue observations. Conclusion: This scoping exercise has shown that podiatrists can translate their existing USI skills to make rudimentary reports on clinical findings in DFU. All participants were consistently able to identify and describe characteristics associated with DFU from a single b mode static wound ultrasound image. Findings from this investigation can be used as a foundation for further work to establish accuracy and reliability to validate DFU sonography. In conjunction the development of protocols and training materials will enable the adoption of USI to assess DFU in clinical practice. This will in turn, contribute to improved patient care and establish a new paradigm for wound surveillance which is translatable to other wound types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older patients who have foot pain report variation in access to services to manage their foot health. To plan services it is essential to understand the scale and burden of foot pain that exists for GPs.Aim: To provide UK-wide population-level data of the frequency of foot and/or ankle pain encounters recorded in general practice.Design and Setting: Population-based cohort design study using data drawn from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from January 2010 to December 2013.Method: All CPRD data were collected prospectively by participating GPs. The primary outcome was prevalence of GP encounters for foot and/or ankle pain, stratified by age, sex, and different subgroups of causes.Results: A foot and/or ankle pain encounter was recorded for 346 067 patients, and there was a total of 567 095 recorded encounters (mean per person 1.6, standard deviation [SD] 1.3). The prevalence of recorded encounters of foot and/or ankle pain was 2980 per 100 000 (3%). The number of patients with a recorded encounter of foot and/or ankle pain was 1820 per 100 000 (1.8%). Foot and/or ankle pain encounters were reported across all age groups (54.4% females), with those aged 71-80 years placing the greatest burden on GPs. The most common specified referrals were to orthopaedics (n = 36 881) and physiotherapy (n = 33 987), followed by podiatry (n = 25 980).Conclusion: The burden of foot and/or ankle pain encounters recorded by GPs is not insubstantial, and spans all ages, with a high proportion of referrals to orthopaedics. The authors recommend further exploration of 'first-contact practitioners' for foot and/or ankle pain in general practice to alleviate the burden on GPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of an MRI-based score that evaluates forefoot bursae (FFBs) in patients with RA.Methods. Items for inclusion, grading criteria and MRI sequences were determined iteratively. The score was evaluated in 30 patients with established RA. Reader agreement was evaluated using the percentage of exact/close agreement, Bland–Altman plots, kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient analyses.Results. The FFB score assesses nine forefoot regions and contains four items: presence, shape, enhancement and magnetic resonance characteristics. The FFB score showed moderate to good intra- and interreader agreement (κ range = 0.5–0.9 and 0.47–0.87, respectively).Conclusion. The FFB score is adequately reliable in the evaluation of bursa-like lesions of the forefoot in patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the views of stakeholders in podiatry services, patients, commissioners and general practitioners (GP), to further understand experiences of referral, access and provision of treatment in the National Health Service (NHS) for foot problems for patients living with arthritis. Method: To explore in-depth individual views and experiences of stakeholders in podiatry services, 19 patients who had arthritis (osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis) participated in one of four focus groups. In addition, seven commissioners and/or GPs took part in semi structured interviews. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted for all focus groups and semi structured interviews. To account for geographical variations, the focus groups and semi structured interviews were conducted across two predetermined regions of the United Kingdom (UK), Yorkshire and Hampshire. Data was rendered anonymous and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key meanings and report patterns within the data. Results: Five key themes derived from the focus groups and interviews suggest a variety of factors influencing referral, access and provision of treatment for foot problems within the UK. 1. Systems working together (navigation of different care pathways, access and referral opportunities for people with OA or RA, education around foot health services for people with OA or RA); 2.Finance (financial variations, different care systems, wasting resources); 3. Understanding what podiatry services have to offer (podiatrists are leaders in foot health services, service requirements in relation to training standards and health needs); 4. Person factors of foot pain (arthritis is invisible, affects quality of life, physical and mental wellbeing); 5. Facilitators of foot care (NICE guidelines, stakeholder events, supporting self-management strategies). Conclusion: The findings indicate that patients, commissioners and GPs have very similar experiences of referral, access and provision of treatment for foot problems, for patients living with arthritis. Essentially, commissioners and GPs interviewed called for a transformational approach in current systems to include newer models of care that meet the footcare needs of individual patient circumstances. Patients interviewed called for better signposting and information about the different services available to help them manage their foot health needs. To address this, we have formulated a signposting pack for all stakeholders to help them facilitate access to appropriate clinicians 'at the right time, in the right place' to manage foot health problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Foot pain can be a significant burden for patients. Custom foot orthoses (CFOs) have been a mainstay in podiatry treatment for foot pain management and improving foot function. However, little is known about podiatrists' experience of prescribing CFOs or patient experience of using foot orthoses (FOs), including CFOs, for foot pain., Methods: A focus group (FG) discussion with three FOs users (Female = 2 and Male = 1) was conducted in November 2022 within a private podiatry practice. This group represented non-experts from the general local population of individuals with existing or previous foot pain who have personally experienced using either over-the-counter FOs or CFOs. An online FG discussion with five musculoskeletal (MSK) specialist podiatrists (Female = 2 and Male = 3) was also conducted in December 2022. This group represented podiatrists with specialist knowledge in foot biomechanics and clinical experience in CFO provision. The FG discussions were recorded and lasted 49 and 57 min respectively. Transcribed data was manually coded, and a thematic analysis was undertaken to identify patterns within the collected data., Results: The participants in the patient FG detailed mixed experiences of the prescription process and CFOs received, with reports of limited involvement/input in their prescription, the need for frequent adjustments and high costs. The impact on footwear choices, replicability and transferability of CFOs into different types of shoes and technologies to aid design were also highlighted. In the podiatrist FG, lack of confidence in design and manufacture processes, prescription form language, relationship and communication building with manufacturers, variability in the CFOs issued and the need for better student education in CFO provision emerged as key themes., Conclusion: Patients and podiatrists shared similar views on CFO provision, namely poor communication with manufacturers leading to dissatisfaction with the CFOs prescribed causing negative impacts on patient experiences. Podiatrists called for greater education at registration level to increase new graduate podiatrist knowledge in CFO design and manufacture and better collaboration with manufacturing companies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Foot and Ankle Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Podiatry Association and The Royal College of Podiatry.)

Background: Podiatrists, in musculoskeletal services, are demonstrating an expansion of their practice skills through the use of ultrasound imaging. There is an assumption that this practice is beneficial within the context of patient care and health systems. The aim of this research was to further investigate the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) by podiatrists within their clinical setting and gain additional insights into the impact that they perceive use of MSUS has on their approaches to management of musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems., Method: An international study utilising a cross-sectional design and an internet-based platform was undertaken. The survey was developed and implemented through three phases: 1. survey development, 2. face validity agreement via questionnaire review, and 3. survey distribution and data collection. Twenty-two survey questions were developed and set as a two-step approach collecting quantitative data (part 1) and qualitative free text data (part 2). Data was exported from SurveyMonkey and analysed using Microsoft Excel software. Counts and frequencies were calculated for responses to all twenty closed questions. Responses to the two final open-ended questions were analysed using thematic analysis to search for patterns related to podiatrists' perceptions of impact., Results: Two hundred and thirty-two eligible participants consented to complete the survey. The majority (n = 159) of respondents were from the UK and Spain. Commonly MSUS has been used in practice for (i) diagnosing pathology, (ii) supporting rehabilitation, (iii) supporting interventions or (iv) research purposes. Most frequently, MSUS was used to assist in the diagnosis of injury/pathology (84%). A range of free text comments were received from the participants in response to the question relating to their thoughts on the impact of using MSUS imaging in their practice (n = 109) and on their perceptions of how the use of MSUS has influenced their approaches to management of their patients' musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems (n = 108). Thematic analysis of the free text comments generated four themes: (i) diagnosis, (ii) delivery and access of care, (iii) patient education and engagement, and (iv) patient empowerment., Conclusion: The perceived benefit podiatrists indicated in using MSUS as part of their practice is the perceived improvement in patient journeys through tighter, focused management plans and reduced waiting times. An additional novel finding was that MSUS provided the capacity for podiatrists to better inform patients of their diagnosis, which they believed led to improved engagement and consequent empowerment of patients in their treatment plans. We propose further investigation of patient experiences as well as testing of the model that embeds podiatrists' use of MSUS as a key skill in musculoskeletal foot and ankle services.