ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2023
Hospital clinicians' perceptions and experiences of care pathways for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing stakeholder's perception and utilisation of frailty assessment in a vascular surgery setting - a national mixed methods study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Patient experience of the process to diagnosis of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: A qualitative study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- Understanding delays in chronic limb-threatening ischaemia care: Application of the theoretical domains framework to identify factors affecting primary care clinicians' referral behaviours.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a condition associated with significant risks of lower limb loss and mortality, which increase with delays in management. Guidance recommends urgent referral and assessment, but delays are evident at every stage of the CLTI patient pathway. This study uses qualitative methods to explore hospital clinicians' experiences and perceptions of the existing CLTI pathway.
methodsA qualitative interview study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 13 clinicians involved in the assessment of patients referred to hospital with suspected CLTI, identified via purposive sampling from English vascular surgery units. Clinicians included podiatrists, vascular specialist nurses and doctors. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed on the data from a critical realist position.
resultsThe need for speed was the single overarching theme identified. Four linked underlying themes were also identified; 1. Vascular surgery as the poor relation (compared to cancer and other specialties), with a sub-theme of CLTI being a challenging diagnosis. 2. Some patients are more equal than others, with sub-themes of diabetes vs. non-diabetes, hub vs. spoke and frailty vs. non-frail. 3. Life in the National Health Service (NHS) is tough, with sub-themes of lack of resource and we're all under pressure. 4. Non-surgeons can help.
conclusionsThe underlying themes generated from the rich interview data describe barriers to timely referral, assessment and management of CLTI, as well as the utility of non-surgical roles such as podiatrists and vascular specialist nurses as a potential solution for delays. The overarching theme of the need for speed highlights the meaning given to adverse consequences of delays in management of CLTI by clinicians involved in its assessment. Future improvement projects aimed at the CLTI pathway should take these findings into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.