When and how to audit a XXXX service.

@entity1 @entity1066 @entity6
UNASSIGNED: Quality improvement depends on data collection and audit of clinical services to inform clinical improvements. Various steps in the care of the @entity6 can be used to audit a service but need defined audit standards. A @entity6 foot service should have risk stratification system in place that should compare to the population based figures of 76% having low risk feet, 17% moderate risk and 7% being at high risk of @entity1066 . Resources can then be directed towards those with high risk feet. Prevalence of foot @entity1066 needs audited. Community based studies give an audit standard of around 2%, with 2 to 9% having had an @entity1066 at some stage in the past. Amputation rates should be easier to measure and the best results are reported to be around 1.5-3 per 1,000 @entity1 with @entity6 . This is a useful benchmark figure and the rate has been shown to decrease by approximately a third over the last fifteen years in some centres. Ulceration rates and @entity1066 rates are the ultimate outcome audit measure as they are always undesirable, whilst occasionally for defined individuals an amputation can be a good outcome. In addition to clinical outcomes, processes of care can be audited such as provision of clinical services, time from new @entity1066 to be seen by health-care professional, in- @entity1 foot care or use of antibiotics. Measurement of clinical services can be a challenge in the @entity6 , but it is essential if clinical services and @entity1 outcomes are to be improved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
