Search

The growing prevalence of venous leg ulcers in an ageing population presents challenges for wound care and management. The Lindsay Leg Club model is an alternative approach to the management of leg health that can improve patient outcomes. This article reports on an audit of a relational database located within the Leg Club Network, containing records of more than 17 000 patients (known as members) who attended a Leg Club in a 5‐year period (2014‐2019). Overall, over 266 000 member leg assessments and treatments were entered into the database. The average nurse‐member attendance time was 28 min, with a skill mix of 23% senior nurses, 70% qualified and associate nurses, and 7% nurses in supervisory roles. Healing rates averaged 62% after 12 weeks. Recurrence rates were 20% after 12 weeks. Annual clinical and volunteer hours averaged 821 and 800 h, respectively. Staffing costs were £28 per wound treatment or leg assessment with a typical duration of 27 min; 71% of members were aged 70 to 94 years old, which indicates the need for a service that caters to the specific requirements of this age group. However, no data on psychosocial and well‐being outcomes were recorded. Their inclusion in further developments of this database is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychosocial Lindsay Leg Club® model of care has been in operation since 1995 and was specifically designed to provide a social model of care for people suffering from or at risk of leg ulceration. Leg Clubs are partnerships between nurses, volunteers, members (the people attending for leg ulcer treatment or prevention) and committed healthcare companies. There are more than 45 Leg Clubs across the UK, Europe and Australia, and the numerous local and national awards awarded to nurses who have set up Leg Clubs are a testament to the recognition the model now enjoys within the wound care community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents letters to the editor for June 7, 2003. Comment on the statistical method, case selection, and clinical data in a study of mortality associated with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections; Topic of the increased risk of suicides and cancer deaths in a study of mortality in Swedish women with cosmetic breast implants; Opinion that research by Alderson and Chalmers makes inappropriate claims; Concerns about a study on the routine telephone review of asthma and the issue of quality dimension measurement; Consumption of coffee during pregnancy; Doctors as servants of patients.

Objective: To determine whether routine review by telephone of patients with asthma improves access and is a good alternative to face to face reviews in general practices., Design: Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Four general practices in England., Participants: 278 adults who had not been reviewed in the previous 11 months., Intervention: Participants were randomised to either telephone review or face to face consultation with the asthma nurse., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures were the proportion of participants who were reviewed within three months of randomisation and disease specific quality of life, as measured by the Juniper mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included the validated "short Q" asthma morbidity score, nursing care satisfaction questionnaire score, and length of consultation., Results: Of 137 people randomised to telephone consultation, 101 (74%) were reviewed, compared with 68 reviewed (48%) of the 141 people in the surgery group, a difference of 26% (95% confidence interval 14% to 37%; P<0.001; number needed to treat 3.8). Three months after randomisation the two groups did not differ in the Juniper score (risk difference -0.07 (95% confidence interval -0.40 to 0.27) or in satisfaction with the consultation (risk difference -0.07 (-0.27 to 0.13)). Telephone consultations were on average 10 minutes shorter than reviews held in the surgery (mean difference 10.7 minutes (12.6 to 8.8; P<0.001))., Conclusions: Compared with face to face consultations in the surgery, telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed, without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction. A shorter duration means that telephone consultations are likely to be an efficient option in primary care for routine review of asthma.