- Title
- Lower limb vascular assessment techniques of podiatrists in the United Kingdom: a national survey
- Creator
- Tehan, Peta Ellen; Fox, Martin; Stewart, Sarah; Matthews, Susan; Chuter, Vivienne Helaine
- Relation
- Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Vol. 12, Issue 1, no. 31
- Publisher Link
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-019-0341-2
- Publisher
- BioMed Central Ltd.
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2019
- Description
- Background: Podiatric vascular assessment practices in the United Kingdom (UK) are currently unknown. This study aimed to describe the current practices for performing lower limb vascular assessments by podiatrists in the UK, and, to investigate the effect of practitioner characteristics, including education level and practice setting, on the choice of tests used for these assessments. Methods: A cross-sectional observational online survey of registered podiatrists in the UK was conducted using SurveyMonkey® between 1st of July and 5th of October 2018. Item content related to: practitioner characteristics, vascular testing methods, barriers to completing vascular assessment, interpretation of vascular assessment techniques, education provision and ongoing management and referral pathways. Descriptive statistics were performed, and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to determine whether practitioner characteristics could predict the choice of vascular tests used. Results: Five hundred and eighty five participants accessed the online survey. After drop-outs and exclusions, 307 participants were included in the analyses. Comprehensive vascular assessments had most commonly been performed once (15.8%) or twice (10.4%) in the past week. The most common indicators for performing vascular assessment were symptoms of suspected claudication (89.3%), suspected rest pain (86.0%) and history of diabetes (85.3%). The most common barrier to performing vascular assessment was time constraints (52.4%). Doppler examination (72.3%) was the most frequently reported assessment type, with ankle-brachial index (31.9%) and toe brachial index (5.9%) less frequently performed. There were variable interpretations of vascular test results. The most common topic for education was smoking cessation (69.5%). Most participants (72.2%) were confident in determining ongoing management, with the majority referring to the patient’s general practitioner (67.6%). Practitioner characteristics did not predict the types of vascular tests performed. Conclusion: The majority of vascular assessments currently performed by podiatrists in the UK are inconsistent with UK or international vascular guidelines and recommendations. Despite this, most podiatrists felt confident in diagnosing, referring and managing patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), however many felt they needed more education to feel confident to assist patients with PAD to manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
- Subject
- non-invasive vascular assessment; podiatrist; survey; doppler; ankle-brachial index; toe-brachial index; toe systolic pressure; SDG 3; Sustainable Development Goals
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1460778
- Identifier
- uon:46048
- Identifier
- ISSN:1757-1146
- Rights
- © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Language
- eng
- Full Text
- Reviewed
- Hits: 1571
- Visitors: 1651
- Downloads: 83
Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
View Details Download | ATTACHMENT02 | Publisher version (open access) | 687 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |