Aims: To determine clinical outcomes and explore prognostic factors related to ulcer healing in people with a clinically infected diabetic foot ulcer.Methods: This multicentre, prospective, observational study reviewed participants’ data at 12 months after culture of a diabetic foot ulcer requiring antibiotic therapy. From participants’ notes, we obtained information on the incidence of wound healing, ulcer recurrence, lower extremity amputation, lower extremity revascularization and death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of healing at 6 and 12 months, adjusted for lower extremity amputation and death using a competing risk analysis, and explored the relationship between baseline factors and healing incidence.Results: In the first year after culture of the index ulcer, 45/299 participants (15.1%) had died. The ulcer had healed in 136 participants (45.5%), but recurred in 13 (9.6%). An ipsilateral lower extremity amputation was recorded in 52 (17.4%) and revascularization surgery in 18 participants (6.0%). Participants with an ulcer present for ~2 months or more had a lower incidence of healing (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77), as did those with a PEDIS (perfusion, extent, depth, infection, sensation) perfusion grade of ≥2 (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.55). Participants with a single ulcer on their index foot had a higher incidence of healing than those with multiple ulcers (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06).Conclusions: Clinical outcomes at 12 months for people with an infected diabetic foot ulcer are generally poor. Our data confirm the adverse prognostic effect of limb ischaemia, longer ulcer duration and the presence of multiple ulcers.

Objective: To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Design: Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England. Participants: Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. Exclusion criteria: clinically inappropriate to take either sample. Interventions: Wound swab obtained using Levine’s technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel. Outcome measures: Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs. Results: 400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres. Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens. The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively). Conclusion: Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples. Trial registration number: ISRCTN52608451.

The objective of this study is to describe the composition of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) working within rheumatology departments across the UK. All rheumatology departments in the United Kingdom (UK) were invited to participate in a national electronic survey between February 2014 and April 2015 as a part of a national audit for the management of rheumatoid and early inflammatory arthritis commissioned by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Rheumatology departments were asked to report their MDT composition; defined as a rheumatologist (consultant or specialist trainee), specialist nurse, occupational therapist physiotherapist, and podiatrist. The data were collected as Whole Time Equivalent (WTE) of each professional group at each department adjusted to 100,000 population. The data were grouped according to British Society for Rheumatology regions to study regional variations. The survey was completed by 164/167 departments (98% response rate). All departments reported an MDT comprising a rheumatologist (consultant or specialist trainee) and almost all included a specialist nurse but only 28 (17%) of the departments had MDTs comprising all the professional groups. There was a high degree of regional variation in the provision of Allied Health Professionals (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and podiatrists) in the UK. MDT care is recommended for the management of inflammatory arthritis, but few UK rheumatology departments have a full complement of healthcare professionals within their MDT. There is a high degree of regional variation in the composition and staffing levels of the rheumatology MDT across the UK; the impact of which warrants further investigation.

Background: Ingrown toenails are a common nail pathology. When conservative treatments are ineffective, a surgical approach is often utilised. Despite recent narrative reviews, there is a need for an up‐to‐date and rigorous systematic review of surgical methods for treating ingrown toenails.Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and two registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN) were searched to January 2022 for randomised trials evaluating the effects of a surgical intervention(s) for ingrown toenails with a follow‐up of at least 1 month. Two independent reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence.Results: Of 3,928 records identified, 36 (3,756 participants; 62.7% males) surgical interventions were included in the systematic review and 31 studies in the meta‐analysis. There was very low quality evidence that using phenol with nail avulsion vs nail avulsion without phenol reduces the risk of recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 0.13 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.27], p < 0.001). No favourable effect was observed between chemical or surgical vs conservative management (0.55 [0.19 to 1.61], p = 0.280; 0.72 [0.33 to 1.56],p = 0.410), chemical or surgical vs other (e.g., CO₂ laser, electrocautery) (1.61 [0.88 to 2.95], p = 0.120; 0.58 [0.25 to 1.37], p = 0.220), chemical vs surgical (0.75 [0.46 to 1.21], p = 0.230), surgical vs surgical (0.42 [0.21 to 0.85]), chemical vs chemical (0.19 [0.01 to 3.80], p = 0.280), surgical vs surgical + chemical (3.68 [0.20 to 67.35], p = 0.380), chemical vs surgical + chemical (1.92 [0.06 to 62.30], p = 0.710), local anaesthetic vs local anaesthetic + adrenaline (1.03 [0.22 to 4.86], p = 0.970), chemical timings 30 s vs 60 s (2.00 [0.19 to 21.41]) or antibiotics vs no antibiotics (0.54 [0.12 to 2.52], p = 0.430). Central toenail resection was the only procedure to significantly relieve symptoms (p = 0.001) but data were only available up to 8 weeks post‐surgery.Conclusion: Despite the high number of publications, the quality of research was poor and the conclusions that can be inferred from existing trials is limited. Phenolisation of the nail matrix appears to reduce the risk of recurrence following nail ablation, and with less certainty 1 min appears to be the optimum time for application. Despite this being a widely performed procedure there remains a lack of good quality evidence to guide practice.

Background: Foot orthoses are frequently used but little is known about which types are used in contemporary practice. This study aimed to explore the types of foot orthoses currently used by podiatrists and the prescription variations in a range of conditions.Methods: A web‐based, cross‐sectional survey was distributed through professional bodies in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. Questions focussed on foot orthosis prescription habits in relation to 26 conditions affecting the back and lower limb.Results: Two hundred and sixty‐four podiatrists practising in 19 different countries completed the survey; the majority practised in the UK (47%, n = 124), Australia (30%, n = 79) and New Zealand (12%, n = 32). Respondents qualified between 1968 and 2016, and 147 (56%) were female. Respondents worked in different healthcare sectors and this varied between countries: 42 (34%) respondents in the UK worked solely in the public sector, compared to 3 (4%) in Australia and 2 (6%) in New Zealand. Forty‐four (35%) respondents in the UK worked solely in private practice, compared to 64 (81%) in Australia and 14 (44%) in New Zealand.UK respondents prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (mean 5.5 pairs) than simple insole‐type devices (±2.7) and customised devices (±2.9). Similarly, respondents in New Zealand prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (±7.7) than simple (±1.4) and customised (±2.8) devices. In contrast, those in Australia prescribed more customised orthoses per week (±4.4) than simple (±0.8) and prefabricated (±1.9) orthoses. Differences in the types of orthoses prescribed were observed between country of practice, working sector, and the condition targeted. Generally, prefabricated orthoses were commonly prescribed for the 26 highlighted conditions in the UK and New Zealand. Australian podiatrists prescribed far fewer devices overall, but when they did prescribe, they were more likely to prescribe custom devices. Respondents in all three countries were more likely to prescribe customised orthoses for people with diabetes complicated by peripheral neuropathy than for diabetes without this complication.Conclusions: Foot orthosis prescription habits vary between countries. Prefabricated orthoses were frequently prescribed in the UK and New Zealand, and customised orthoses in Australia. Prescriptions for people with diabetes differed depending on the presence of neuropathy, despite a lack of robust evidence supporting these decisions. This study provides new insight into contemporary practice.

Objectives. To describe conservative and surgical foot care in patients with RA in England and explore factors that predict the type of foot care received. Methods. Use of podiatry and type of foot surgery were outcomes recorded in an inception cohort involving nine rheumatology centres that recruited patients with RA between 1986 and 1998 across England. Associations between patient-specific factors and service use were identified using univariate logistic regression analyses. The independence of these associations was then verified through multiple binary logistic regression modelling. Results. Data were collected on 1237 patients with RA [66.9% females, mean (s.d.) age at disease onset = 54.36 (14.18) years, median DAS = 4.09 (1st quartile = 3.04, 3rd quartile = 5.26), median HAQ = 1 (0.50, 1.63)]. Interventions involving the feet in the cohort were low with only 364 (30%) out of 1218 receiving podiatry and 47 (4%) out of 1237 patients having surgery. At baseline, female gender, increasing age at onset, being RF positive and higher DAS scores were each independently associated with increased odds of seeing a podiatrist. Gender, age of onset and baseline DAS were independently associated with the odds of having foot surgery. Conclusions. Despite the known high prevalence of foot pathologies in RA, only one-third of this cohort accessed podiatry. While older females were more likely to access podiatry care and younger patients surgery, the majority of the RA population did not access any foot care.