A prospective, descriptive study to assess the reliability and usability of a rapid foot screen for patients with diabetes mellitus in a complex continuing care setting

• Published in: Ostomy/wound management Vol. 59; no. 1; pp. 28 - 34
• Main Authors: Carreau, Louise, Niezgoda, Helen, LeBlond, Sara, Trainor, Andrea, Orsted, Heather, Woodbury, M Gail
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States HMP Communications 01.01.2013
• Subjects: Aged; Continuity of Patient Care; Diabetes; Diabetic Foot - diagnosis; Feet; Female; Humans; Long term health care; Male; Middle Aged; Nursing; Patients; Prospective Studies; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Wound healing; Canada
• ISSN: 2640-5237; 0889-5899; 1943-2720; 2640-5245

Inlow's 60-second Diabetic Foot Screen is a paper-pencil tool developed to guide professionals in the completion of a quick foot assessment of persons with diabetes mellitus to determine recommended frequency of assessments. The tool has been used in various healthcare settings and its reliability and validity previously tested in acute and long-term care settings. The purpose of this study was to assess content, time to complete assessment, ease of use, and reliability of the tool in a complex continuing care setting. The tool includes questions about 10 variables; skin, nails, deformities, footwear, temperature, range of motion, sensation, pulses, dependent rubor, and erythema. Answers convert to a score ranging from 0 (low risk, yearly screenings) to 23 (high risk, weekly screenings). Using the tool, the study questionnaire, and a watch, three nurse assessors experienced in assessing the feet of persons with diabetes completed 70 assessments on 35 patients during a period of 30 days. Content areas assessed included significance of comorbidities and interval screening times. Mean time to complete the assessment was 7 minutes (range 2 to 21 minutes); 39% of assessments took 6 to 7 minutes. Times to perform assessment varied widely due to the functional and cognitive well-being of the patient. Inter-rater reliability was low (ICC 0.608 [95% confidence interval 0.349-0.781]), perhaps due to varying interpretations of assessment parameters related to the complexity of the study patient population. Comments suggest that some tool revisions may increase ease of use as well as tool validity and reliability, especially for complex care patients with multiple comorbidities.