It’s time we talked about Charcot foot: Results of a podiatry patient education questionnaire
View/ Open
Date
2019-09-01Author
Bullen, Benjamin
Young, Matthew
McArdle, Carla
Ellis, Mairghread JH
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Bullen, B., Young, M., McArdle, C. & Ellis, M. J. H. (2019) It’s time we talked about Charcot foot: Results of a podiatry patient education questionnaire. The Diabetic Foot Journal, 22(3), pp. 12-17.
Abstract
In contrast with diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) and lower-extremity amputation (LEA), current Scottish patient information leaflets reserve Charcot foot education for individuals ‘In Remission’ from, or with active, Charcot foot. A small group of Scottish NHS podiatrists recently agreed Charcot foot education should be delivered to all ‘At-risk’ individuals with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. This study sought to compare discussion about diabetes foot disease and Charcot foot between ‘At-risk’ and ‘In Remission’ groups among this cohort. Fourteen participants completed an ‘At-risk’ component of the Charcot foot patient education questionnaire, while six also completed an ‘In Remission’ component. Topics investigated for both groups included DFU and LEA risk, footwear and insoles, and signs of infection and Charcot foot. Frequency of discussion data was captured with a five-point Likert scale. Median response and interquartile range (IQR) were described and compared between groups. Median values and IQR for discussion of DFU and LEA risk were 5 (IQR 1) and 3 (IQR 1.25) respectively for ‘At-risk’ groups, and 5 (IQR 0.25) and 3 (IQR 2), respectively, among the ‘In Remission’ group. For discussion of footwear and insoles, the median response was 4 (IQR 1) for ‘At-risk’ and 5 (IQR 1) for ‘In Remission’ groups, reversed for discussion of signs of infection. The greatest between-group discrepancy was found for discussion of Charcot foot, with median responses and IQR found to be 3 (IQR 2) and 5 (IQR 0.25) for ‘At-risk’ and ‘In Remission’ groups, respectively. This discrepancy has potential implications for Charcot foot educational strategies, audit and research. It is proposed that ‘always’ should be the benchmark for frequency of Charcot foot education, not just for those ‘In Remission’ but also those ‘At risk’.