There is a paucity of research on patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) that go on to develop infection. We aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for developing infection in a large regional cohort of patients presenting with uninfected DFUs. We performed a secondary analysis of data collected from a validated prospective state-wide clinical diabetic foot database in Queensland (Australia). Patients presenting for their first visit with an uninfected DFU to a Diabetic Foot Service in one of thirteen Queensland regions between January 2012 and December 2013 were included. Socio-demographic, medical history, foot disease history, DFU characteristics and treatment variables were captured at the first visit. Patients were followed until their DFU healed, or if their DFU did not heal for 12-months, to determine if they developed a foot infection in that period. Overall, 853 patients were included; mean(standard deviation) age 62.9(12.8) years, 68.0% male, 90.9% type 2 diabetes, 13.6% indigenous Australians. Foot infection developed in 342 patients for an overall incidence of 40.1%; 32.4% incidence in DFUs healed <3 months, 55.9% in DFUs healed between 3–12 months (p<0.05). Independent risk factors (Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)) for developing infection were: DFUs healed between 3–12 months (2.3 (1.6–3.3)), deep DFUs (2.2 (1.2–3.9)), peripheral neuropathy (1.8 (1.1–2.9)), previous DFU history (1.7 (1.2–2.4)), foot deformity (1.4 (1.0–2.0)), female gender (1.5 (1.1–2.1)) and years of age (0.98 (0.97–0.99)) (all p<0.05). A considerable proportion of patients presenting with an uninfected DFU will develop an infection prior to healing. To prevent infection clinicians treating patients with uninfected DFUs should be particularly vigilant with those presenting with deep DFUs, previous DFU history, peripheral neuropathy, foot deformity, younger age, female gender and DFUs that have not healed by 3 months after presentation.

Background: Chronic leg ulcers cause long term ill-health for older adults and the condition places a significant burden on health service resources. Although evidence on effective management of the condition is available, a significant evidence-practice gap is known to exist, with many suggested reasons e.g. multiple care providers, costs of care and treatments. This study aimed to identify effective health service pathways of care which facilitated evidence-based management of chronic leg ulcers. Methods: A sample of 70 patients presenting with a lower limb leg or foot ulcer at specialist wound clinics in Queensland, Australia were recruited for an observational study and survey. Retrospective data were collected on demographics, health, medical history, treatments, costs and health service pathways in the previous 12 months. Prospective data were collected on health service pathways, pain, functional ability, quality of life, treatments, wound healing and recurrence outcomes for 24 weeks from admission. Results: Retrospective data indicated that evidence based guidelines were poorly implemented prior to admission to the study, e.g. only 31% of participants with a lower limb ulcer had an ABPI or duplex assessment in the previous 12 months. On average, participants accessed care 2–3 times/week for 17 weeks from multiple health service providers in the twelve months before admission to the study clinics. Following admission to specialist wound clinics, participants accessed care on average once per week for 12 weeks from a smaller range of providers. The median ulcer duration on admission to the study was 22 weeks (range 2–728 weeks). Following admission to wound clinics, implementation of key indicators of evidence based care increased (p < 0.001) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis found the median time to healing was 12 weeks (95% CI 9.3–14.7). Implementation of evidence based care was significantly related to improved healing outcomes (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study highlights the complexities involved in accessing expertise and evidence based wound care for adults with chronic leg or foot ulcers. Results demonstrate that access to wound management expertise can promote streamlined health services and evidence based wound care, leading to efficient use of health resources and improved health.

The use of atmospheric low‐temperature plasma (AP) on chronic wounds and its effect on microbial bioburden in open wounds has not been explored with a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed and PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compared AP with no AP for the management of open, chronic wounds. The primary outcomes of reduction of bioburden or wound size were included. Meta‐analyses were performed; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted and pooled in a random effects model.Four RCTs investigated the effect of AP on chronic wound healing. Chronic wounds treated with AP did not show a significant improvement in healing (AP vs control: OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.89‐2.38; P = 0.13). Five further RCTs investigated the reduction of bioburden in wounds, but AP demonstrated no significant reduction of bioburden (AP vs control: OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.45‐1.62; P = 0.63). All nine RCTs recorded the presence of any severe adverse events (SAEs) in the 268 patients studied, with only one unrelated SAE identified in each group (AP vs control: OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.05‐19.96; P = 1.00). Use of AP in wound care is safe, but the retrieved evidence and meta‐analysis show that there is no clinical benefit of AP in chronic open wounds using currently available AP device settings.