Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32764027›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2020

Increasing identification of foot at risk of complications in patients with diabetes: a quality improvement project in an urban primary health centre in India.

Abha Mehndiratta, Satish Chandra Mishra, Prashant Bhandarkar, Kunal Chhatbar, Francoise Cluzeau, Team PrimaryCareDoctors

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Abha MehndirattaGlobal Health and Development Group, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Satish Chandra MishraDepartment of Surgery, WHO Collaboration Centre for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in LMIC, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital, Mumbai, India mishrasatishdr@gmail.com.
Prashant BhandarkarDepartment of Surgery, WHO Collaboration Centre for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in LMIC, BARC Hospital, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Kunal ChhatbarDepartment of Surgery, WHO Collaboration Centre for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in LMIC, BARC Hospital, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Francoise CluzeauGlobal Health and Development Group, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Team PrimaryCareDoctorsEast Deonar Dispensary, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Bhabha Atomic Research Center Hospital · INBhabha Atomic Research Centre · INImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of foot amputations are preventable in people with diabetes. Guidelines recommend that people with diabetes should receive a foot examination for risk assessment, at least annually. In an audit at a primary health centre (PHC) in Mumbai, India, no patient with diabetes was offered preventive foot assessment in preceding 12 months. Problem analysis identified a lack of clinic policy, training and equipment for foot assessment. There was no standardised referral pathway for patients identified with foot at risk of diabetes complications. Furthermore, limited data review, high patient volumes and little time available with healthcare providers were important constraints. A quality improvement project was carried out at the PHC from January to September 2017. The project aimed at increasing compliance to standardised foot assessment in patients with diabetes presenting to the PHC from a baseline of 0% to 100% over 6 months. This would help identify patients having a foot at risk of complications due to diabetes. The Quality Standard on foot assessment was adopted from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Diabetic Foot Guideline. The electronic medical record (EMR) was standardised, health providers were trained, PHC processes and referral pathways were redesigned. Plan-Do-Study-Act was used to address barriers with weekly data review. 88.2% (848) of patients with diabetes visiting the PHC during the study period received a foot examination. Out of these, 11% (95) were identified to have a foot at risk and referred to a specialist foot centre. 57% of referred patients followed with specialised foot protection services. Training of healthcare providers, standardisation of processes and regular data feedback can improve diabetic foot care. Integrating quality indicators in the EMR helps monitor compliance. The inability to use doctor's time efficiently was the biggest challenge and sustaining the change will require organisational changes with suitable task shifting.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdultDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetic FootFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareUrban Populationdiabetes mellituselectronic health recordshealthcare quality improvementimplementation scienceprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32764027
PMCPMC7412605
OpenAlexW3048030364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.