TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the Possibility of Recurrent Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prevention via Remote Patient Monitoring
T2 - A Feasibility Study
AU - Abbott, Caroline A.
AU - Franklyn, Kerryn J.
AU - Stuart, David E.
AU - Kirwan, Ellen
AU - Flynn, Sinead
AU - Scott, Ron
AU - McIntosh, Caroline
AU - Boulton, Andrew J.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2025/10
Y1 - 2025/10
N2 - Aims: Our main aims in this study of diabetic patients at risk of foot ulcers were to evaluate: (a) adherence to the use of an at-home thermal and visual digital foot scanner, (b) the feasibility of utilising thermovisual scan data to perform remote foot assessments, thereby enabling, if indicated, remote intervention by podiatrists and (c) the validity of scanned images to identify skin lesions consistent with those found at a podiatric clinical evaluation. Methods: In this single arm, open-label, 12-week pilot study in two countries, recruited patients with previous diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) (n = 27) were asked to stand on a digital foot scanner (OneStep), once a day at home. Plantar thermal and visual scan data were transmitted daily to a centralised monitoring service for daily review. Any abnormalities were immediately reported to the patient's podiatric healthcare provider, who determined appropriate intervention. Primary endpoints were patient adherence, device utility and data validity. Results: All participants with an active device (n = 26) took thermal and visual scans on 1547 days during 1940 active study days, averaging 5.3 ± 1.4 scans/week, with 80 ± 19% adherence (days scan recorded/days in study*100). Visual scans correctly identified all incident DFUs (n = 7). Podiatrists agreed that scans enabled the identification of skin integrity issues earlier than standard care (in 82% cases), finding visual scan images useful in 90% of reports and thermal data in 12%. Remote visual assessments agreed well with gold-standard podiatric examinations in identifying skin integrity risks (kappa = 0.67 [95% CI, 0.53–0.82, p < 0.001]), also showing good sensitivity (80%) and specificity (100%). Conclusions: Remote foot scanning was easy to perform and was used consistently by vulnerable patients. Scans were useful for remote podiatric foot assessments and interventions, and visual images identified DFUs/skin problems to a good level. We now aim to test this monitoring system in a larger scale randomised controlled trial for DFU prevention.
AB - Aims: Our main aims in this study of diabetic patients at risk of foot ulcers were to evaluate: (a) adherence to the use of an at-home thermal and visual digital foot scanner, (b) the feasibility of utilising thermovisual scan data to perform remote foot assessments, thereby enabling, if indicated, remote intervention by podiatrists and (c) the validity of scanned images to identify skin lesions consistent with those found at a podiatric clinical evaluation. Methods: In this single arm, open-label, 12-week pilot study in two countries, recruited patients with previous diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) (n = 27) were asked to stand on a digital foot scanner (OneStep), once a day at home. Plantar thermal and visual scan data were transmitted daily to a centralised monitoring service for daily review. Any abnormalities were immediately reported to the patient's podiatric healthcare provider, who determined appropriate intervention. Primary endpoints were patient adherence, device utility and data validity. Results: All participants with an active device (n = 26) took thermal and visual scans on 1547 days during 1940 active study days, averaging 5.3 ± 1.4 scans/week, with 80 ± 19% adherence (days scan recorded/days in study*100). Visual scans correctly identified all incident DFUs (n = 7). Podiatrists agreed that scans enabled the identification of skin integrity issues earlier than standard care (in 82% cases), finding visual scan images useful in 90% of reports and thermal data in 12%. Remote visual assessments agreed well with gold-standard podiatric examinations in identifying skin integrity risks (kappa = 0.67 [95% CI, 0.53–0.82, p < 0.001]), also showing good sensitivity (80%) and specificity (100%). Conclusions: Remote foot scanning was easy to perform and was used consistently by vulnerable patients. Scans were useful for remote podiatric foot assessments and interventions, and visual images identified DFUs/skin problems to a good level. We now aim to test this monitoring system in a larger scale randomised controlled trial for DFU prevention.
KW - diabetic foot
KW - diabetic foot ulcer (DFU)
KW - digital health
KW - remote patient monitoring
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105019114372
U2 - 10.1002/dmrr.70096
DO - 10.1002/dmrr.70096
M3 - Article
C2 - 41105798
AN - SCOPUS:105019114372
SN - 1520-7552
VL - 41
JO - Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
JF - Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
IS - 7
M1 - e70096
ER -