Using the PICO(T) Approach When Caring for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Using the PICO(T) Approach When Caring for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Using the PICO(T) Approach When Caring for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

The issue to be reviewed is the need to prevent and effectively treat patients with or who are at risk for diabetic foot ulcers. A patient with uncontrolled diabetes can experience both diabetic neuropathy and peripheral artery disease, which can both lead to the unfortunate diagnosis of a diabetic foot ulcer (Zhong et al. 2017). This information has sparked the research aimed at determining the most effective ways of treating patients with this malady. The chosen interventions that will be used are proper foot care, foot screenings, regular debridement, effective dressings, and antibiotic treatment. The condition being searched is diabetic foot ulcers, and the target demographic is the diabetic patient. This study will compare diabetic foot ulcer treatments and preventative techniques. This research aims to have a better understanding of successful therapies so that excellent evidence-based treatment can be provided. The PICO(T) question being asked is: When a diabetic is suffering from foot ulcers, does negative pressure wound therapy lead to better wound healing as opposed to standard moist therapy?

Identifying Sources of Evidence

Current guidelines indicate the necessity for wound dressings to be maintained in a humid environment, absorb exudate, prevent infections, and induce healing. Some examples of these dressings include hydrogels, alginate dressings, hydrocolloids, and foam adhesives (Firlar et al. 2022). Diabetic wound dressings are usually non-adhesive, regular bandages and some may have antibacterial properties within their makeup. To identify relevant evidence that specifically reflects the above PICO(T) question, it was important to narrow down the search for the most targeted research about wound therapies. The search for evidence started with the Summon database where the CRAAP model was used to locate credible evidence. This test allows for that final check as to whether or not the source is credible and trustworthy.

The first source of credible evidence that was uncovered is an article by Borys et al. (2019) and explores “negative pressure wound therapy use in diabetic foot syndrome.” This article directly answered the aforementioned PICO(T) question because it addresses the pros and cons of negative pressure wound therapy and its effect on wound healing. It even states that this treatment can effectively reduce the size of the ulcer in just 16 days. Another source of evidence was noted by Seidel et al. (2020), and explains “negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard moist therapy.” This scholarly article directly relates to the PICO(T) question because it discusses the difference between negative pressure and standard moist therapies in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.

Discount Code: CIPD30

WHATSAPP CHAT: +1 (781) 253-4162

Click ORDER NOW..