Experiences of a Novel Structured Foot Examination Form for Patients With Diabetes From the Perspective of Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Study.
Susanne Andersson, Isabella Scandurra, Ulrika Nyström and 2 others
PMID 37463012WHAT IT FOUND
Health care professionals found a new paper foot examination form helpful for structure and patient education, but emphasized that it cannot replace professional judgement.
Risk categories were initially confusing, and the form required a running-in period before becoming useful.
Key findings
01Professionals valued the form for providing structure and clarity, which facilitated adherence to guidelines and standardized the examination process across different caregivers.
02The form was unexpectedly effective as an educational tool, helping professionals initiate conversations with patients about self-care, medical foot care criteria, and the importance of the examination.
03Risk grading was perceived as illogical and contradictory, particularly regarding the assignment of risk categories, requiring significant professional judgement to interpret and apply correctly.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study had a small sample size of 8 participants. Dropout resulted in no representation from municipal care, limiting transferability to that setting. The form was used for only five visits per participant, which may not reflect long-term integration into practice. Qualitative methods involve researcher subjectivity, though steps were taken to mitigate this through multiple coders.
Declared interests
None declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the professionals' appreciation of the form's structure as evidence that it improves clinical outcomes or reduces foot ulcers. The study reports user experience and perceived utility, not patient outcomes, and explicitly highlights that the form requires professional judgement to overcome its logical contradictions in risk grading.