Confidence of recurrent cellulitis self-diagnosis among people with lymphoedema: a qualitative interview study.
cellulitis
confidence
diagnosis
lower limb
lymphoedema
qualitative research
self-diagnosis
Journal
The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN: 1478-5242
Titre abrégé: Br J Gen Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005323
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
11
06
2019
accepted:
29
07
2019
pubmed:
19
12
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
19
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cellulitis can sometimes be challenging for healthcare professionals to diagnose, with no validated diagnostic criteria available. Supporting healthcare professionals to make a more accurate diagnosis of cellulitis in different groups, such as those with lymphoedema, is a cellulitis research priority. However, to the authors knowledge, no previous studies have looked at the involvement of non-healthcare professionals in the diagnostic process. To explore the experience of people with lymphoedema and recurrent cellulitis in the diagnosis of lower-limb cellulitis. Single, semi-structured, qualitative interviews carried out between 29 October and 19 December 2018. Adults with a suspected episode of cellulitis who had been diagnosed in the last 12 months or had a history of recurrent cellulitis were interviewed. Three key themes emerged: the recurrent nature of cellulitis symptoms, participants' experience of getting a cellulitis diagnosis, and participants' suggestions of how cellulitis diagnosis might be improved. Generally, people with lymphoedema experienced similar clinical features during each of their own recurrent cellulitis episodes and were confident that they could make a self-diagnosis of cellulitis. This is also reflected in the participants' perceived trust from the healthcare professional in being able to make a self-diagnosis. A diagnostic checklist and educational resources were suggested as methods to improve diagnosis. Selected people with lymphoedema who have recurrent cellulitis are confident in self-diagnosing their own recurrent cellulitis episodes. There may be a role for greater involvement of people with lymphoedema in their cellulitis diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cellulitis can sometimes be challenging for healthcare professionals to diagnose, with no validated diagnostic criteria available. Supporting healthcare professionals to make a more accurate diagnosis of cellulitis in different groups, such as those with lymphoedema, is a cellulitis research priority. However, to the authors knowledge, no previous studies have looked at the involvement of non-healthcare professionals in the diagnostic process.
AIM
To explore the experience of people with lymphoedema and recurrent cellulitis in the diagnosis of lower-limb cellulitis.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Single, semi-structured, qualitative interviews carried out between 29 October and 19 December 2018.
METHOD
Adults with a suspected episode of cellulitis who had been diagnosed in the last 12 months or had a history of recurrent cellulitis were interviewed.
RESULTS
Three key themes emerged: the recurrent nature of cellulitis symptoms, participants' experience of getting a cellulitis diagnosis, and participants' suggestions of how cellulitis diagnosis might be improved. Generally, people with lymphoedema experienced similar clinical features during each of their own recurrent cellulitis episodes and were confident that they could make a self-diagnosis of cellulitis. This is also reflected in the participants' perceived trust from the healthcare professional in being able to make a self-diagnosis. A diagnostic checklist and educational resources were suggested as methods to improve diagnosis.
CONCLUSION
Selected people with lymphoedema who have recurrent cellulitis are confident in self-diagnosing their own recurrent cellulitis episodes. There may be a role for greater involvement of people with lymphoedema in their cellulitis diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31848202
pii: bjgp19X707909
doi: 10.3399/bjgp19X707909
pmc: PMC6923101
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e130-e137Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© British Journal of General Practice 2020.
Références
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Aug;177(2):541-543
pubmed: 28477399
Br J Dermatol. 2019 May;180(5):993-1000
pubmed: 30422315
Br J Nurs. 2007 Mar 22-Apr 11;16(6):S22-4, S26-8
pubmed: 17505397
Br J Dermatol. 2012 Jan;166(1):169-78
pubmed: 21910701
Br J Dermatol. 2011 Jun;164(6):1326-8
pubmed: 21564054
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 2;368(18):1695-703
pubmed: 23635049
BMJ. 1999 Jun 12;318(7198):1591-4
pubmed: 10364117
Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1288-92
pubmed: 18341662
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Dec;181(6):1156-1165
pubmed: 30844076
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Apr;180(4):810-820
pubmed: 30451281
J Infect. 2005 Dec;51(5):383-9
pubmed: 16321649
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Feb 1;153(2):141-146
pubmed: 27806170
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Apr;69(681):e279-e286
pubmed: 30858335