Dataset Information

Health service organisation impact on lower extremity amputations in people with type 2 diabetes with foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Despite the evidence available on the epidemiology of diabetic foot ulcers and associated complications, it is not clear how specific organizational aspects of health care systems can positively affect their clinical trajectory. We aim to evaluate the impact of organizational aspects of care on lower extremity amputation rates among people with type 2 diabetes affected by foot ulcers.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 1999 and 2019, using the following key terms as search criteria: people with type 2 diabetes, diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcer, treated with specific processes and care pathways, and LEA as primary outcome. Overall results were reported as pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals obtained using fixed and random effects models.

Results

A total of 57 studies were found eligible, highlighting the following arrangements: dedicated teams, care pathways and protocols, multidisciplinary teams, and combined interventions. Among them, seven studies qualified for a meta-analysis. According to the random effects model, interventions including any of the four arrangements were associated with a 29% reduced risk of any type of lower extremity amputation (OR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.96). The effect was larger when focusing on major LEAs alone, leading to a 48% risk reduction (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91).

Conclusions

Specific organizational arrangements including multidisciplinary teams and care pathways can prevent half of the amputations in people with diabetes and foot ulcers. Further studies using standardized criteria are needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness to facilitate wider implementation of improved organizational arrangements. Similarly, research should identify specific roadblocks to translating evidence into action. These may be structures and processes at the health system level, e.g. availability of professionals with the right skillset, reimbursement mechanisms, and clear organizational intervention implementation guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Meza-Torres B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7864802 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM).ObjectivesTo assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM.Search methodsIn March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data.Main resultsThree studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.One trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm(2), 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.The other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm(2), 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.

Project description:ObjectiveMultiple single-center studies have reported significant reductions in major amputations among patients with diabetic foot ulcers after initiation of multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between multidisciplinary teams (ie, two or more types of clinicians working together) and the risk of major amputation and to compile descriptions of these diverse teams.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 24, 2019 for studies reporting the association between multidisciplinary teams and major amputation rates for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. We included original studies if ≥50% of the patients seen by the multidisciplinary team had diabetes, they included a control group, and they reported the effect of a multidisciplinary team on major amputation rates. Studies were excluded if they were non-English language, abstracts only, or unpublished. We used the five-domain Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model to describe team composition and function and summarized changes in major amputation rates associated with multidisciplinary team care. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity across studies, their observational designs, and the potential for uncontrolled confounding (PROSPERO No. 2017: CRD42017067915).ResultsWe included 33 studies, none of which were randomized trials. Multidisciplinary team composition and functions were highly diverse. However, four elements were common across teams: teams were composed of medical and surgical disciplines; larger teams benefitted from having a "captain" and a nuclear and ancillary team member structure; clear referral pathways and care algorithms supported timely, comprehensive care; and multidisciplinary teams addressed four key tasks: glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection. Ninety-four percent (31/33) of studies reported a reduction in major amputations after institution of a multidisciplinary team.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary team composition was variable but reduced major amputations in 94% of studies. Teams consistently addressed glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection in a timely and coordinated manner to reduce major amputation for patients with diabetic foot ulcerations. Care algorithms and referral pathways were key tools to their success.