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

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Keywords

• Delphi technique
• Podiatry
• Risk
• Triage
• COVID‐19