Development of the consensus-based recommendations for Podiatry care of Neuropathy In Cancer Survivors (PodNICS): a Delphi consensus study of Australian podiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) is the most common presenting side effect of chemotherapy. As a sensory based neuropathy, this condition can persist for a long time after cessation of chemotherapy and impact the quality of life of cancer survivors. Podiatrists in Australia have been managing people with CIPN related lower limb complications, however guidelines on management of CIPN do not exist. The aim of this study was to achieve consensus and agreement of Australian podiatrists on strategies to best manage people presenting with symptoms of CIPN. METHODS: An online three-round modified Delphi survey of Australian podiatrists with expertise in CIPN was conducted in line with recommendations for conducting and reporting of Delphi studies (CREDES). Panellists responded to open-ended questions in Round 1, whereupon their responses were themed into statements and analysed for existing consensus. Statements not reaching consensus were returned during Round 2 to seek agreement from responders using a five-point Likert scale and to allow responders to make further comments. For a statement to reach consensus or agreement, 70% or more of panellists needed to make the same comment or agree or strongly agree with the same themed statement. Statements reaching 50 to 69% consensus or agreement were returned to panellists in Round 3 for them to consider their responses in the light of group outcomes. RESULTS: Round one resulted in 229 comments from 21 of 26 podiatrists who agreed to participate. These comments were themed into 53 statements with 11 consensus statements accepted. Round 2 resulted in 22 statements reaching agreement, and 15 new statements being generated from 18 comments made by 17 respondents. Round 3 resulted in 11 statements reaching agreement. Outcomes were developed into a set of clinical recommendations for diagnosis and management of people presenting with CIPN. These recommendations provide guidance on 1) identifying common signs and symptoms of CIPN including sensory, motor and autonomic symptoms; 2) diagnosis and assessment of CIPN including neurological, motor and dermatological assessment modalities; and 3) best clinical practice and management strategies for CIPN identified by podiatrists including both podiatry and non-podiatry specific care. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in podiatry literature to develop expert-informed consensus-based recommendations for clinical presentation, diagnosis and assessment and management of people with CIPN. These recommendations aim to help guide podiatrists in the consistent care of people with CIPN.

Consensus-based statements for assessing clinical competency in podiatry-related work integrated learning.

BACKGROUND: The training of undergraduate and graduate-entry podiatry students in Australia and New Zealand includes practical sessions in a simulated and real-life clinical setting and Work Integrated Learning (WIL) comprising professional clinical placements. Student performance during WIL is evaluated by their Clinical Educators using clinical competency tools. Having a standardised and validated clinical assessment tool for WIL in podiatry would facilitate consistency in assessment, promote standardisation between programs, and ensure that all podiatry students are assessed against a set of criteria over the course of their clinical programs to the point of threshold clinical competency. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a series of consensus-based statements via Delphi technique as the first step towards developing guidelines to direct the assessment of podiatry students during WIL. METHODS: This study used a three-round modified Delphi consensus method. A panel of 25 stakeholders was sought. Specifically, representation from each of the universities in Australia and New Zealand who provide entry level programs, Clinical Educators, podiatry student representatives, new podiatry graduates and consumers (podiatrists hiring new graduates). The survey for Round 1 aimed for consensus and consisted of five open-ended questions. Questions one to three asked respondents to nominate what they considered were the important elements that needed to be assessed for podiatry students undertaking WIL for: Clinical performance/skills, Communication and Professional behaviour, Question 4 asked respondents to identify further/other elements of importance, whilst Question 5 asked a) how these elements should be evaluated and b) how should overall competency and ability to progress within the program be determined. Round 2 and 3 aimed to gather agreement and the questions were based on the responses from previous rounds. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants agreed to participate, 17 females (68%) and eight males (32%). The panel consisted of 10 podiatry educators (40%), nine Clinical Educators (36%), two student representatives (8%), two new podiatry graduates (8%) and two consumers (8%). From the 25 recruited participants, 21 responded to Round one, 18 to Round two and 17 in Round three. At the conclusion of the Delphi survey, 55 statements had reached consensus or agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study is the first of its kind for the podiatry profession to develop consensus-based statements regarding the assessment of WIL. Fifty-five statements pertinent to the assessment of WIL were identified. This is an important first step toward the development of a consistent WIL assessment tool which may be applied across entry-level podiatry programs across Australia and New Zealand.

Development and use of the PodEssential and Paeds-PodEssential triage tools to define "essential" podiatry services. A Delphi survey, scoping review, and face validity testing study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic resulted in unique challenges for podiatrists in Australia. Podiatrists were tasked with having to make triage decisions about face-to-face care without clear guidelines. This research aimed to develop podiatry triage tools to understand individual risk for adults and children, and explore the face validity of both tools. METHODS: An online three-round modified Delphi technique was used to elicit podiatrists' opinions on conditions, assessments and social factors that elevate risk. Additional elements of known foot and/or leg risk were informed by a synchronous scoping review. Australian podiatrists who held a clinical role treating patients or directly managing podiatrists treating patients within the past six months were recruited. Where 70% of participants reported the same or similar theme in Round 1, statements were accepted with consensus. Where 50-69% of participants reported a similar theme, these were returned to participants to rate agreement using a four-point Likert agreement scale. Statements identified in the scoping review were added at Round 2, if not already identified by participants. The final round presented participants with triage tools, and a series of mock patient scenarios.. Participants were asked to indicate if they would or would not provide face to face podiatry service based on these scenarios. RESULTS: There were 40 participants who responded to Round 1 (Adult presentations), of these, 23 participants also provided paediatric presentation responses. Participants developed and agreed upon 20 statements about risk in podiatry service delivery for both adults and children across Rounds 1 and 2. The PodEssential and Paed-PodEssential were developed based on these statements indicating stand-alone condition risk (tier 1), elements that should elevate risk (in the absence of a stand-alone condition) (tier 2), and assessments results identifiying a limb at risk (tier 3) in adults and children respectively. Participants utilising these tools in Round 3 more frequently indicated face-to-face service when mock patient scenarios included a greater number elements, suggesting the tool can be useful in making triage decisions. CONCLUSION: The PodEssential and Paeds-PodEssential tools direct conditions requiring urgent attention as well as providing considered elements to a person's health status to assist in making triage decisions.

The effectiveness of non-surgical intervention (Foot Orthoses) for paediatric flexible pes planus: A systematic review: Update.

BACKGROUND: Flexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common presenting condition in clinical practice due to concerns amongst parents and caregivers. While Foot Orthoses (FOs) are a popular intervention, their effectiveness remains unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base for the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, SportDiscus, Scopus and PEDro) was conducted from January 2011 to July 2017. Studies of children (0-18 years) diagnosed with flexible pes planus and intervention to be any type of Foot Orthoses (FOs) were included. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. McMaster critical review form for quantitative studies, was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis of the included studies was undertaken. RESULTS: Out of 606 articles identified, 11 studies (three RCTs; two case-controls; five case-series and one single case study) met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of pre-fabricated and customised FOs were utilised and effectiveness measured through a plethora of outcomes. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicated that FOs may have a positive impact across a range of outcomes including pain, foot posture, gait, function and structural and kinetic measures. Despite these consistent positive outcomes reported in several studies, the current evidence base lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of diagnostic criteria, interventions delivered and outcomes measured for paediatric flexible pes planus. CONCLUSION: There continues to remain uncertainty on the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. Despite a number of methodological limitations, FOs show potential as a treatment method for children with flexible pes planus. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057310.

When, why and how foot orthoses (FOs) should be prescribed for children with flexible pes planus: a Delphi survey of podiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Flexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common reason parents and caregivers seek health professionals consult and a frequent reason podiatrists prescribe foot orthoses. Yet no universal agreement exists on the diagnosis of this condition, or when and how foot orthoses should be prescribed. The aim of this study was to garner consensus and agreement among podiatrists on the use of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. METHODS: A three round Delphi consensus survey was undertaken with 15 podiatry experts from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Round One gathered consensus on the diagnosis and intervention into paediatric pes planus with specific questions on types of FOs and prescription variables used. Round Two and Three were based on answers from Round One and gathered agreement (rationale for choices) on a five point Likert scale. 70% of respondents had to agree to a statement for it to be accepted as consensus or agreement. RESULTS: Consensus and agreement was achieved for 83 statements directing the diagnosis of pes planus (using FPI-6 and/or rearfoot measures), common signs and symptoms (e.g., pain, fatigue, abnormal gait and other functional concerns) that direct when to intervene into paediatric flexible pes planus. Prefabricated orthoses were the preferred intervention where adequate control is gained with their use. When customised orthoses are prescribed, a vertical [heel] cast pour (71.4%) and minimal arch fill (76.9%) are the prescription variables of choice, plus or minus additional variables (i.e., medial heel (Kirby) skive, the use of a University of California Biomechanical Laboratory device or a medial flange) dependent on level of disorder and plane of excessive motion. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified consensus and agreement on a series of diagnosis methods and interventions for the paediatric flexible pes planus. A clinical protocol was developed from the resultant consensus statements which provides clinicians with a series of evidenced-informed statements to better guide them on when, how and why FOs are used specific to this population.