| Title |
Effectiveness of a multicenter training programme to teach point‐of‐care vascular ultrasound for the detection of peripheral arterial disease in people with diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13047-018-0283-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pasha Normahani, Rishi Agrawal, Vasilliki Bravis, Agnieszka Falinska, Linda Bloomfield, Zaheer Mehar, Dawn Gaulton, Alex Sangster, Tracey Arkle, Corinna Gomm, Mohamed Aslam, Nigel J. Standfield, Usman Jaffer |
| Abstract |
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a training programme to teach a focused bedside ultrasound scan (PAD-scan; Podiatry Ankle Duplex Scan) for the detection of arterial disease in people with diabetes. Five podiatrists and one diabetologist across two hospitals were enrolled in a structured training programme consisting of a training course (1-day), supervised scanning (5-weeks), independent scanning (3-weeks) and a final evaluation of performance (1-day).Time, technical skills (Duplex Ultrasound Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills tool (DUOSATS); minimum score = 6, maximum score = 26) and accuracy (level of agreement with vascular scientist PAD-scan assessment) were assessed for every supervised scan and again for the final evaluation of performance. A total of 90 PAD-scans in 65 patients were performed during the supervised phase. Participants demonstrated significant improvements in median time (19 min(IQR 13.9-25.5) vs 9.3 min (IQR 7.3-10.5) ; p = 0.028) and DUOSATS scores (17.5 (IQR 16.8-21) vs 25 (IQR 24-25.3); p = 0.027). At the final evaluation, participants completed scans in 5.4 min (IQR 5.3-5.9), achieved full DUOSAT scores and perfect agreement with the vascular scientist. A structured training programme, integrated into diabetic foot clinics, was effective in teaching the PAD-scan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 21% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |