Limits...
Process evaluation of podiatric treatment of patients with forefoot pain.

van der Zwaard BC, Swagerman WJ, Vanwanseele B, Gorter KJ, van der Horst HE, Elders PJ - J Foot Ankle Res (2013)

Bottom Line: In five other cases the expert panel concluded that the treatment of the podiatrist was not consistent with the cause of the problem recorded by the podiatrist.Three patients did not remember receiving advice at all.Fundamental differences in treatment plans and thus heterogeneous treatments could be a consequence.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: EMGO+ Institute, Department of general practice and elderly care medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.elders@vumc.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Foot pain is a common problem for people aged 50 and over and occurs more often in women than in men. About 60% of the foot problems are forefoot problems and slightly more than half of these patients seek medical help, mainly in the form of podiatric care. Podiatric treatment of forefoot problems is known to be heterogeneous. The aims of the present study are to describe the podiatric treatment of patients with forefoot pain and to evaluate the podiatric examination and treatment using an expert panel.

Method: We invited twenty-five randomly selected subjects with forefoot problems who had received podiatric treatment in a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to participate in an analysis of their treatment by an expert panel. The panel retrospectively established the cause of the foot problem as well as the therapeutic goals and evaluated the treatment. These findings were compared to those reported by the treating podiatrist.

Results: Two fundamentally different approaches were found in approach of podiatric examination; a functional approach (n =13) and a non-functional approach (n =12). In nine cases the expert panel agreed with the cause recorded by the podiatrist. In five other cases the expert panel concluded that the treatment of the podiatrist was not consistent with the cause of the problem recorded by the podiatrist. Of the 10 patients for whom the podiatrist had recorded to have given shoe advice, only two were able to recollect the proper advice. Three patients did not remember receiving advice at all.

Conclusion: In this study almost half of the podiatrists worked according to a non-functional approach where the other half (like the expert panel) chose a functional strategy that analyses the underlying problem. Fundamental differences in treatment plans and thus heterogeneous treatments could be a consequence.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework. The podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework was developed in cooperation with the Fontys University of Applied Sciences and five podiatrists.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750369&req=5

Figure 1: Podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework. The podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework was developed in cooperation with the Fontys University of Applied Sciences and five podiatrists.

Mentions: Thirteen podiatrists provided the podiatric treatment. All podiatrists received instructions about the treatment framework (Figure 1). They filled in a standardised form with the aetiology of the foot problem, the aim of their treatment and the content of the delivered treatment immediately after they had completed their treatment. If treatment by means of orthotic devices was chosen the specific elements of the orthotic device was to be recorded by the podiatrist.


Process evaluation of podiatric treatment of patients with forefoot pain.

van der Zwaard BC, Swagerman WJ, Vanwanseele B, Gorter KJ, van der Horst HE, Elders PJ - J Foot Ankle Res (2013)

Podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework. The podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework was developed in cooperation with the Fontys University of Applied Sciences and five podiatrists.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750369&req=5

Figure 1: Podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework. The podiatric diagnostic and treatment framework was developed in cooperation with the Fontys University of Applied Sciences and five podiatrists.
Mentions: Thirteen podiatrists provided the podiatric treatment. All podiatrists received instructions about the treatment framework (Figure 1). They filled in a standardised form with the aetiology of the foot problem, the aim of their treatment and the content of the delivered treatment immediately after they had completed their treatment. If treatment by means of orthotic devices was chosen the specific elements of the orthotic device was to be recorded by the podiatrist.

Bottom Line: In five other cases the expert panel concluded that the treatment of the podiatrist was not consistent with the cause of the problem recorded by the podiatrist.Three patients did not remember receiving advice at all.Fundamental differences in treatment plans and thus heterogeneous treatments could be a consequence.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: EMGO+ Institute, Department of general practice and elderly care medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.elders@vumc.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Foot pain is a common problem for people aged 50 and over and occurs more often in women than in men. About 60% of the foot problems are forefoot problems and slightly more than half of these patients seek medical help, mainly in the form of podiatric care. Podiatric treatment of forefoot problems is known to be heterogeneous. The aims of the present study are to describe the podiatric treatment of patients with forefoot pain and to evaluate the podiatric examination and treatment using an expert panel.

Method: We invited twenty-five randomly selected subjects with forefoot problems who had received podiatric treatment in a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to participate in an analysis of their treatment by an expert panel. The panel retrospectively established the cause of the foot problem as well as the therapeutic goals and evaluated the treatment. These findings were compared to those reported by the treating podiatrist.

Results: Two fundamentally different approaches were found in approach of podiatric examination; a functional approach (n =13) and a non-functional approach (n =12). In nine cases the expert panel agreed with the cause recorded by the podiatrist. In five other cases the expert panel concluded that the treatment of the podiatrist was not consistent with the cause of the problem recorded by the podiatrist. Of the 10 patients for whom the podiatrist had recorded to have given shoe advice, only two were able to recollect the proper advice. Three patients did not remember receiving advice at all.

Conclusion: In this study almost half of the podiatrists worked according to a non-functional approach where the other half (like the expert panel) chose a functional strategy that analyses the underlying problem. Fundamental differences in treatment plans and thus heterogeneous treatments could be a consequence.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus