V1.0 Clinicians’ diagnosis of infection in DFUs: a judgement analysis

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Clinicians’ diagnosis of infection in diabetic foot ulcers: a sequential, two-phase, mixed-methods study

  • IRAS ID

    290893

  • Contact name

    Carl Thompson

  • Contact email

    c.a.thompson@leeds.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    University of Leeds

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 9 months, 2 days

  • Research summary

    Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a type of chronic wound, presenting as open sores on the feet due to nerve damage and/or poor blood supply. Lots of individuals with diabetes have DFUs. They restrict ’normal’ life for many, are expensive to treat and can become infected. This delays healing and increases the risk of hospital admission, sepsis, amputation and premature death. \n\nDetecting and appropriately responding to infection is a complex aspect of clinical practice. Guidelines advise clinicians to only rely upon the signs and symptoms experienced by the patient (not swab/sample results), but co-morbidities may mean that some of these are less evident. So,’infected’ and ’uninfected’ DFUs may have a similar presentation. The lack of an objective ’gold standard’ means that clinicians will likely have their own diagnostic strategies, using different pieces of information in different ways. Some strategies may be safer and more useful than others - given the unwarranted variation in patient outcomes across England.\n\nI wish to investigate how clinicians diagnose DFU infection (the pieces of information used, weights attached) and the accuracy and consistency of these judgements. The results may be used to develop a decision aide upon completion of this PhD, aiming to support clinicians to make more accurate judgements and decisions. \n\nThe proposed study will be carried out in West Yorkshire and has two phases. Phase One identifies and obtains the information needed to perform a Judgement Analysis in Phase Two. \n\nThis study is being undertaken in partial fulfilment of a PhD, University of Leeds.

  • REC name

    East of England - Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    21/EE/0108

  • Date of REC Opinion

    27 Apr 2021

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion