Journal of wound care · 2026
Provision and use of focused rigidity casts in the public health setting: a modified Delphi study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bramston Cassandra, Cotchett Matthew, Francis Anthony, Jessup Rebecca L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Focused rigidity casts (FRCs) are used by podiatrists in the promotion of wound healing and to offload bony prominences and foot ulcers. The aim of this study was to gain expert consensus on the best method of FRC application to inform the development of a clinical guideline.
METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted comprising three rounds. The first round consisted of open-ended questions around clinical guideline content, from which three researchers independently identified themes from expert responses. Survey rounds two and three sought to gain agreement on statements identified from the first round. Consensus was defined as >70% expert agreement on the importance of inclusion of statements in the guideline.
RESULTS: Experts from six Melbourne metropolitan health services in Australia contributed to the development, then rated the importance, of 86 statements for inclusion in a clinical guideline. Statements addressed key clinical considerations, including: indications and contraindications; educational and training requirements; organisational procedures and guidelines; and the perceived benefits of the technique. Consensus was gained for 42 items and a draft guideline has been produced.
CONCLUSION: Consensus was gained on 42 statements for inclusion in a clinical guideline on the use of FRCs. In light of the limited research evidence on the use of the technique, this guideline provides an important contribution to clinicians implementing it.
METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted comprising three rounds. The first round consisted of open-ended questions around clinical guideline content, from which three researchers independently identified themes from expert responses. Survey rounds two and three sought to gain agreement on statements identified from the first round. Consensus was defined as >70% expert agreement on the importance of inclusion of statements in the guideline.
RESULTS: Experts from six Melbourne metropolitan health services in Australia contributed to the development, then rated the importance, of 86 statements for inclusion in a clinical guideline. Statements addressed key clinical considerations, including: indications and contraindications; educational and training requirements; organisational procedures and guidelines; and the perceived benefits of the technique. Consensus was gained for 42 items and a draft guideline has been produced.
CONCLUSION: Consensus was gained on 42 statements for inclusion in a clinical guideline on the use of FRCs. In light of the limited research evidence on the use of the technique, this guideline provides an important contribution to clinicians implementing it.