Flora Kisuule, MD

Persistent gender disparities exist in pay,^1,2 leadership opportunities,^3,4 promotion,⁵ and speaking opportunities.⁶ While the gender distribution of the hospitalist workforce may be approaching parity,^3,7,8 gender differences in leadership, speakership, and authorship have already been noted in hospital medicine.³ Between 2006 and 2012, women constituted less than a third (26%) of the presenters at the national conferences of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) and the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM).³

The SHM Annual Meeting has historically had an “open call” peer review process for workshop presenters with the goal of increasing the diversity of presenters. In 2019, this process was expanded to include didactic speakers. Our aim in this study was to assess whether these open call procedures resulted in improved representation of women speakers and how the proportion of women speakers affects the overall evaluation scores of the conference. Our hypothesis was that the introduction of an open call process for the SHM conference didactic speakers would be associated with an increased proportion of women speakers, compared with the closed call processes, without a negative impact on conference scores.

The study is a retrospective evaluation of data collected regarding speakers at the annual SHM conference from 2015 to 2019. The SHM national conference typically has two main types of offerings: workshops and didactics. Workshop presenters from 2015 to 2019 were selected via an open call process as defined below. Didactic speakers (except for plenary speakers) were selected using the open call process for 2019 only.

We aimed to compare (1) the number and proportion of women speakers, compared with men speakers, over time and (2) the proportion of women speakers when open call processes were utilized versus that seen with closed call processes. Open call included workshops for all years and didactics for 2019; closed call included didactics for 2015 to 2018 and plenary sessions 2015 to 2019 (Table). The speaker list for the conferences was obtained from conference pamphlets or agendas available via Internet searches or obtained through attendance at the conference.

jhm01503228_t1.jpg

Speaker Categories and Identification Process

We determined whether each individual was a featured speaker (one whose talk was unopposed by other sessions), plenary speaker (defined as such in the conference pamphlets), whether they spoke in a group format, and whether the speaking opportunity type was a workshop or a didactic session. Numbers of featured and plenary speakers were combined because of low numbers. SHM provided deidentified conference evaluation data for each year studied. For the purposes of this study, we analyzed all speakers which included physicians, advanced practice providers, and professionals such as nurses and other interdisciplinary team members. The same speaker could be included multiple times if they had multiple speaking opportunities.

Open Call Process

We defined the “open call process” (referred to as “open call” here forward) as the process utilized by SHM that includes the following two components: (1) advertisements to members of SHM and to the medical community at large through a variety of mechanisms including emails, websites, and social media outlets and (2) an online submission process that includes names of proposed speakers and their topic and, in the case of workshops, session objectives as well as an outline of the proposed workshop. SHM committees may also submit suggestions for topics and speakers. Annual Conference Committee members then review and rate submissions on the categories of topic, organization and clarity, objectives, and speaker qualifications (with a focus on institutional, geographic, and gender diversity). Scores are assigned from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best score) for each category and a section for comments is available. All submissions are also evaluated by the course director.

After initial committee reviews, scores with marked reviewer discrepancies are rereviewed and discussed by the committee and course director. A cutoff score is then calculated with proposals falling below the cutoff threshold omitted from further consideration. Weekly calls are then focused on subcategories (ie tracks) with emphasis on clinical and educational content. Each of the tracks have a subcommittee with track leads to curate the best content first and then focus on final speaker selection. More recently, templates are shared with the track leads that include a location to call out gender and institutional diversity. Weekly calls are held to hone the content and determine the speakers.

For the purposes of this study, when the above process was not used, the authors refer to it as “closed call.” Closed call processes do not typically involve open invitations or a peer review process. (Table)

Gender

Gender was assigned based on the speaker’s self-identification by the pronouns used in their biography submitted to the conference or on their institutional website or other websites where the speaker was referenced. Persons using she/her/hers pronouns were noted as women and persons using he/him/his were noted as men. For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized gender as binary (ie woman/man) given the limited information we had from online sources.

REDCap, a secure, Web-based application for building and managing online survey and databases, was used to collect and manage all study data.⁹

All analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 8.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) using retrospectively collected data. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the proportion of women speakers from 2015 to 2019. A chi-square test was used to assess the proportion of women speakers for open call processes versus that seen with closed call. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate annual conference evaluation scores from 2015 to 2019. Either numbers with proportions or means with standard deviations have been reported. Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons was applied, with a P < .008 considered statistically significant.

Between 2015 and 2019, a total of 709 workshop and didactic presentations were given by 1,261 speakers at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference. Of these, 505 (40%) were women; 756 (60%) were men. There were no missing data.

From 2015 to 2019, representation of women speakers increased from 35% of all speakers to 47% of all speakers (P = .0068). Women plenary speakers increased from 23% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 (P = .0396).

The proportion of women presenters for workshops (which have utilized an open call process throughout the study period), ranged from 43% to 53% from 2015 to 2019 with no statistically significant difference in gender distribution across years (Figure).

jhm01503228_f1.jpg

The important findings of this study are that there has been an increase in women speakers over the last 5 years at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference, that women had higher representation as speakers when open call processes were followed, and that conference scores continued to improve during the time frame studied. These findings suggest that a systematic open call process helps to support equitable speaking opportunities for men and women at a national hospital medicine conference without a negative impact on conference quality.

To recruit more diverse speakers, open call and peer review processes were used in addition to deliberate efforts at ensuring diversity in speakers. We found that over time, the proportion of women with speaking opportunities increased from 2015 to 2019. Interestingly, workshops, which had open call processes in place for the duration of the study period, had almost equal numbers of men and women presenting in all years. We also found that the number of all-men speaking groups decreased between 2015 and 2019.

A single process change can impact gender equity, but the target of true equity is expected to require additional measures such as assessment of committee structures and diversity, checklists, and reporting structures (data analysis and plans when goals not achieved).^10-13 For instance, the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting was able to achieve gender equity in speakers by a multifold approach including ensuring the program committee was aware of gender statistics, increasing female representation among session convener teams, and direct instruction to try to avoid all-male sessions.¹¹

It is important to acknowledge that these processes do require valuable resources including time. SHM has historically used committee volunteers to conduct the peer review process with each committee member reviewing 20 to 30 workshop submissions and 30 to 50 didactic sessions. While open processes with peer review seem to generate improved gender equity, ensuring processes are in place during the selection process is also key.

Several recent notable efforts to enhance gender equity and to increase diversity have been proposed. One such example of a process that may further improve gender equity was proposed by editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine to assess current representation via demographics including gender, race, and ethnicity of authors with plans to assess patterns in the coming years.¹⁴ The American College of Physicians also published a position paper on achieving gender equity with a recommendation that organizational policies and procedures should be implemented that address implicit bias.¹⁵

Our study showed that, from 2015 to 2019, conference evaluations saw a significant increase in the score concurrently with the rise in proportion of women speakers. This finding suggests that quality does not seem to be affected by this new methodology for speaker selection and in fact this methodology may actually help improve the overall quality of the conference. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to concurrently evaluate speaker gender equity with conference quality.

Our study offers several strengths. This study took a pragmatic approach to understanding how processes can impact gender equity, and we were able to take advantage of the evolution of the open call system (ie workshops which have been an open call process for the duration of the study versus speaking opportunities that were not).

Our study also has several limitations. First, this study is retrospective in nature and thus other processes could have contributed to the improved gender equity, such as an organization’s priorities over time. During this study period, the SHM conference saw an average 3% increase annually in women speakers and an increase of 8% from 2018 to 2019 for all speakers compared to national trends of approximately 1%,⁶ which suggests that the open call processes in place could be contributing to the overall increases seen. Similarly, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we cannot be certain that the improvements in conference scores were directly the result of improved gender equity, although it does suggest that the improvements in gender equity did not have an adverse impact on the scores. We also did not assess how the composition of selection committee members for the meeting could have impacted the overall composition of the speakers. Our study looked at diversity only from the perspective of gender in a binary fashion, and thus additional studies are needed to assess how to improve diversity overall. It is unclear how this new open call for speakers affects race and ethnic diversity specifically. Identifying gender for the purposes of this study was facilitated by speakers providing their own biographies and the respective pronouns used in those biographies, and thus gender was easier to ascertain than race and ethnicity, which are not as readily available. For organizations to understand their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, enhancing the ability to fairly track and measure diversity will be key. Lastly, understanding of the exact composition of hospitalists from both a gender and race/ethnicity perspective is lacking. Studies have suggested that, based upon those surveyed or studied, there is a fairly equal balance of men and women albeit in academic groups.³

An open call approach to speakers at a national hospitalist conference seems to have contributed to improvements regarding gender equity in speaking opportunities with a concurrent improvement in overall rating of the conference. The open call system is a potential mechanism that other institutions and organizations could employ to enhance their diversity efforts.

Acknowledgments

Society of Hospital Medicine Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Special Interest Group

Work Group for SPEAK UP: Marisha Burden, MD, Daniel Cabrera, MD, Amira del Pino-Jones, MD, Areeba Kara, MD, Angela Keniston, MSPH, Keshav Khanijow, MD, Flora Kisuule, MD, Chiara Mandel, Benji Mathews, MD, David Paje, MD, Stephan Papp, MD, Snehal Patel, MD, Suchita Shah Sata, MD, Dustin Smith, MD, Kevin Vuernick

Persistent gender disparities exist in pay,^1,2 leadership opportunities,^3,4 promotion,⁵ and speaking opportunities.⁶ While the gender distribution of the hospitalist workforce may be approaching parity,^3,7,8 gender differences in leadership, speakership, and authorship have already been noted in hospital medicine.³ Between 2006 and 2012, women constituted less than a third (26%) of the presenters at the national conferences of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) and the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM).³

The SHM Annual Meeting has historically had an “open call” peer review process for workshop presenters with the goal of increasing the diversity of presenters. In 2019, this process was expanded to include didactic speakers. Our aim in this study was to assess whether these open call procedures resulted in improved representation of women speakers and how the proportion of women speakers affects the overall evaluation scores of the conference. Our hypothesis was that the introduction of an open call process for the SHM conference didactic speakers would be associated with an increased proportion of women speakers, compared with the closed call processes, without a negative impact on conference scores.

The study is a retrospective evaluation of data collected regarding speakers at the annual SHM conference from 2015 to 2019. The SHM national conference typically has two main types of offerings: workshops and didactics. Workshop presenters from 2015 to 2019 were selected via an open call process as defined below. Didactic speakers (except for plenary speakers) were selected using the open call process for 2019 only.

We aimed to compare (1) the number and proportion of women speakers, compared with men speakers, over time and (2) the proportion of women speakers when open call processes were utilized versus that seen with closed call processes. Open call included workshops for all years and didactics for 2019; closed call included didactics for 2015 to 2018 and plenary sessions 2015 to 2019 (Table). The speaker list for the conferences was obtained from conference pamphlets or agendas available via Internet searches or obtained through attendance at the conference.

jhm01503228_t1.jpg

Speaker Categories and Identification Process

We determined whether each individual was a featured speaker (one whose talk was unopposed by other sessions), plenary speaker (defined as such in the conference pamphlets), whether they spoke in a group format, and whether the speaking opportunity type was a workshop or a didactic session. Numbers of featured and plenary speakers were combined because of low numbers. SHM provided deidentified conference evaluation data for each year studied. For the purposes of this study, we analyzed all speakers which included physicians, advanced practice providers, and professionals such as nurses and other interdisciplinary team members. The same speaker could be included multiple times if they had multiple speaking opportunities.

Open Call Process

We defined the “open call process” (referred to as “open call” here forward) as the process utilized by SHM that includes the following two components: (1) advertisements to members of SHM and to the medical community at large through a variety of mechanisms including emails, websites, and social media outlets and (2) an online submission process that includes names of proposed speakers and their topic and, in the case of workshops, session objectives as well as an outline of the proposed workshop. SHM committees may also submit suggestions for topics and speakers. Annual Conference Committee members then review and rate submissions on the categories of topic, organization and clarity, objectives, and speaker qualifications (with a focus on institutional, geographic, and gender diversity). Scores are assigned from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best score) for each category and a section for comments is available. All submissions are also evaluated by the course director.

After initial committee reviews, scores with marked reviewer discrepancies are rereviewed and discussed by the committee and course director. A cutoff score is then calculated with proposals falling below the cutoff threshold omitted from further consideration. Weekly calls are then focused on subcategories (ie tracks) with emphasis on clinical and educational content. Each of the tracks have a subcommittee with track leads to curate the best content first and then focus on final speaker selection. More recently, templates are shared with the track leads that include a location to call out gender and institutional diversity. Weekly calls are held to hone the content and determine the speakers.

For the purposes of this study, when the above process was not used, the authors refer to it as “closed call.” Closed call processes do not typically involve open invitations or a peer review process. (Table)

Gender

Gender was assigned based on the speaker’s self-identification by the pronouns used in their biography submitted to the conference or on their institutional website or other websites where the speaker was referenced. Persons using she/her/hers pronouns were noted as women and persons using he/him/his were noted as men. For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized gender as binary (ie woman/man) given the limited information we had from online sources.

REDCap, a secure, Web-based application for building and managing online survey and databases, was used to collect and manage all study data.⁹

All analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 8.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) using retrospectively collected data. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the proportion of women speakers from 2015 to 2019. A chi-square test was used to assess the proportion of women speakers for open call processes versus that seen with closed call. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate annual conference evaluation scores from 2015 to 2019. Either numbers with proportions or means with standard deviations have been reported. Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons was applied, with a P < .008 considered statistically significant.

Between 2015 and 2019, a total of 709 workshop and didactic presentations were given by 1,261 speakers at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference. Of these, 505 (40%) were women; 756 (60%) were men. There were no missing data.

From 2015 to 2019, representation of women speakers increased from 35% of all speakers to 47% of all speakers (P = .0068). Women plenary speakers increased from 23% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 (P = .0396).

The proportion of women presenters for workshops (which have utilized an open call process throughout the study period), ranged from 43% to 53% from 2015 to 2019 with no statistically significant difference in gender distribution across years (Figure).

jhm01503228_f1.jpg

The important findings of this study are that there has been an increase in women speakers over the last 5 years at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference, that women had higher representation as speakers when open call processes were followed, and that conference scores continued to improve during the time frame studied. These findings suggest that a systematic open call process helps to support equitable speaking opportunities for men and women at a national hospital medicine conference without a negative impact on conference quality.

To recruit more diverse speakers, open call and peer review processes were used in addition to deliberate efforts at ensuring diversity in speakers. We found that over time, the proportion of women with speaking opportunities increased from 2015 to 2019. Interestingly, workshops, which had open call processes in place for the duration of the study period, had almost equal numbers of men and women presenting in all years. We also found that the number of all-men speaking groups decreased between 2015 and 2019.

A single process change can impact gender equity, but the target of true equity is expected to require additional measures such as assessment of committee structures and diversity, checklists, and reporting structures (data analysis and plans when goals not achieved).^10-13 For instance, the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting was able to achieve gender equity in speakers by a multifold approach including ensuring the program committee was aware of gender statistics, increasing female representation among session convener teams, and direct instruction to try to avoid all-male sessions.¹¹

It is important to acknowledge that these processes do require valuable resources including time. SHM has historically used committee volunteers to conduct the peer review process with each committee member reviewing 20 to 30 workshop submissions and 30 to 50 didactic sessions. While open processes with peer review seem to generate improved gender equity, ensuring processes are in place during the selection process is also key.

Several recent notable efforts to enhance gender equity and to increase diversity have been proposed. One such example of a process that may further improve gender equity was proposed by editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine to assess current representation via demographics including gender, race, and ethnicity of authors with plans to assess patterns in the coming years.¹⁴ The American College of Physicians also published a position paper on achieving gender equity with a recommendation that organizational policies and procedures should be implemented that address implicit bias.¹⁵

Our study showed that, from 2015 to 2019, conference evaluations saw a significant increase in the score concurrently with the rise in proportion of women speakers. This finding suggests that quality does not seem to be affected by this new methodology for speaker selection and in fact this methodology may actually help improve the overall quality of the conference. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to concurrently evaluate speaker gender equity with conference quality.

Our study offers several strengths. This study took a pragmatic approach to understanding how processes can impact gender equity, and we were able to take advantage of the evolution of the open call system (ie workshops which have been an open call process for the duration of the study versus speaking opportunities that were not).

Our study also has several limitations. First, this study is retrospective in nature and thus other processes could have contributed to the improved gender equity, such as an organization’s priorities over time. During this study period, the SHM conference saw an average 3% increase annually in women speakers and an increase of 8% from 2018 to 2019 for all speakers compared to national trends of approximately 1%,⁶ which suggests that the open call processes in place could be contributing to the overall increases seen. Similarly, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we cannot be certain that the improvements in conference scores were directly the result of improved gender equity, although it does suggest that the improvements in gender equity did not have an adverse impact on the scores. We also did not assess how the composition of selection committee members for the meeting could have impacted the overall composition of the speakers. Our study looked at diversity only from the perspective of gender in a binary fashion, and thus additional studies are needed to assess how to improve diversity overall. It is unclear how this new open call for speakers affects race and ethnic diversity specifically. Identifying gender for the purposes of this study was facilitated by speakers providing their own biographies and the respective pronouns used in those biographies, and thus gender was easier to ascertain than race and ethnicity, which are not as readily available. For organizations to understand their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, enhancing the ability to fairly track and measure diversity will be key. Lastly, understanding of the exact composition of hospitalists from both a gender and race/ethnicity perspective is lacking. Studies have suggested that, based upon those surveyed or studied, there is a fairly equal balance of men and women albeit in academic groups.³

An open call approach to speakers at a national hospitalist conference seems to have contributed to improvements regarding gender equity in speaking opportunities with a concurrent improvement in overall rating of the conference. The open call system is a potential mechanism that other institutions and organizations could employ to enhance their diversity efforts.

Acknowledgments

Society of Hospital Medicine Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Special Interest Group

Work Group for SPEAK UP: Marisha Burden, MD, Daniel Cabrera, MD, Amira del Pino-Jones, MD, Areeba Kara, MD, Angela Keniston, MSPH, Keshav Khanijow, MD, Flora Kisuule, MD, Chiara Mandel, Benji Mathews, MD, David Paje, MD, Stephan Papp, MD, Snehal Patel, MD, Suchita Shah Sata, MD, Dustin Smith, MD, Kevin Vuernick

Persistent gender disparities exist in pay,^1,2 leadership opportunities,^3,4 promotion,⁵ and speaking opportunities.⁶ While the gender distribution of the hospitalist workforce may be approaching parity,^3,7,8 gender differences in leadership, speakership, and authorship have already been noted in hospital medicine.³ Between 2006 and 2012, women constituted less than a third (26%) of the presenters at the national conferences of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) and the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM).³

The SHM Annual Meeting has historically had an “open call” peer review process for workshop presenters with the goal of increasing the diversity of presenters. In 2019, this process was expanded to include didactic speakers. Our aim in this study was to assess whether these open call procedures resulted in improved representation of women speakers and how the proportion of women speakers affects the overall evaluation scores of the conference. Our hypothesis was that the introduction of an open call process for the SHM conference didactic speakers would be associated with an increased proportion of women speakers, compared with the closed call processes, without a negative impact on conference scores.

The study is a retrospective evaluation of data collected regarding speakers at the annual SHM conference from 2015 to 2019. The SHM national conference typically has two main types of offerings: workshops and didactics. Workshop presenters from 2015 to 2019 were selected via an open call process as defined below. Didactic speakers (except for plenary speakers) were selected using the open call process for 2019 only.

We aimed to compare (1) the number and proportion of women speakers, compared with men speakers, over time and (2) the proportion of women speakers when open call processes were utilized versus that seen with closed call processes. Open call included workshops for all years and didactics for 2019; closed call included didactics for 2015 to 2018 and plenary sessions 2015 to 2019 (Table). The speaker list for the conferences was obtained from conference pamphlets or agendas available via Internet searches or obtained through attendance at the conference.

jhm01503228_t1.jpg

Speaker Categories and Identification Process

We determined whether each individual was a featured speaker (one whose talk was unopposed by other sessions), plenary speaker (defined as such in the conference pamphlets), whether they spoke in a group format, and whether the speaking opportunity type was a workshop or a didactic session. Numbers of featured and plenary speakers were combined because of low numbers. SHM provided deidentified conference evaluation data for each year studied. For the purposes of this study, we analyzed all speakers which included physicians, advanced practice providers, and professionals such as nurses and other interdisciplinary team members. The same speaker could be included multiple times if they had multiple speaking opportunities.

Open Call Process

We defined the “open call process” (referred to as “open call” here forward) as the process utilized by SHM that includes the following two components: (1) advertisements to members of SHM and to the medical community at large through a variety of mechanisms including emails, websites, and social media outlets and (2) an online submission process that includes names of proposed speakers and their topic and, in the case of workshops, session objectives as well as an outline of the proposed workshop. SHM committees may also submit suggestions for topics and speakers. Annual Conference Committee members then review and rate submissions on the categories of topic, organization and clarity, objectives, and speaker qualifications (with a focus on institutional, geographic, and gender diversity). Scores are assigned from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best score) for each category and a section for comments is available. All submissions are also evaluated by the course director.

After initial committee reviews, scores with marked reviewer discrepancies are rereviewed and discussed by the committee and course director. A cutoff score is then calculated with proposals falling below the cutoff threshold omitted from further consideration. Weekly calls are then focused on subcategories (ie tracks) with emphasis on clinical and educational content. Each of the tracks have a subcommittee with track leads to curate the best content first and then focus on final speaker selection. More recently, templates are shared with the track leads that include a location to call out gender and institutional diversity. Weekly calls are held to hone the content and determine the speakers.

For the purposes of this study, when the above process was not used, the authors refer to it as “closed call.” Closed call processes do not typically involve open invitations or a peer review process. (Table)

Gender

Gender was assigned based on the speaker’s self-identification by the pronouns used in their biography submitted to the conference or on their institutional website or other websites where the speaker was referenced. Persons using she/her/hers pronouns were noted as women and persons using he/him/his were noted as men. For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized gender as binary (ie woman/man) given the limited information we had from online sources.

REDCap, a secure, Web-based application for building and managing online survey and databases, was used to collect and manage all study data.⁹

All analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 8.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) using retrospectively collected data. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the proportion of women speakers from 2015 to 2019. A chi-square test was used to assess the proportion of women speakers for open call processes versus that seen with closed call. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate annual conference evaluation scores from 2015 to 2019. Either numbers with proportions or means with standard deviations have been reported. Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons was applied, with a P < .008 considered statistically significant.

Between 2015 and 2019, a total of 709 workshop and didactic presentations were given by 1,261 speakers at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference. Of these, 505 (40%) were women; 756 (60%) were men. There were no missing data.

From 2015 to 2019, representation of women speakers increased from 35% of all speakers to 47% of all speakers (P = .0068). Women plenary speakers increased from 23% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 (P = .0396).

The proportion of women presenters for workshops (which have utilized an open call process throughout the study period), ranged from 43% to 53% from 2015 to 2019 with no statistically significant difference in gender distribution across years (Figure).

jhm01503228_f1.jpg

The important findings of this study are that there has been an increase in women speakers over the last 5 years at the annual Society of Hospital Medicine Conference, that women had higher representation as speakers when open call processes were followed, and that conference scores continued to improve during the time frame studied. These findings suggest that a systematic open call process helps to support equitable speaking opportunities for men and women at a national hospital medicine conference without a negative impact on conference quality.

To recruit more diverse speakers, open call and peer review processes were used in addition to deliberate efforts at ensuring diversity in speakers. We found that over time, the proportion of women with speaking opportunities increased from 2015 to 2019. Interestingly, workshops, which had open call processes in place for the duration of the study period, had almost equal numbers of men and women presenting in all years. We also found that the number of all-men speaking groups decreased between 2015 and 2019.

A single process change can impact gender equity, but the target of true equity is expected to require additional measures such as assessment of committee structures and diversity, checklists, and reporting structures (data analysis and plans when goals not achieved).^10-13 For instance, the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting was able to achieve gender equity in speakers by a multifold approach including ensuring the program committee was aware of gender statistics, increasing female representation among session convener teams, and direct instruction to try to avoid all-male sessions.¹¹

It is important to acknowledge that these processes do require valuable resources including time. SHM has historically used committee volunteers to conduct the peer review process with each committee member reviewing 20 to 30 workshop submissions and 30 to 50 didactic sessions. While open processes with peer review seem to generate improved gender equity, ensuring processes are in place during the selection process is also key.

Several recent notable efforts to enhance gender equity and to increase diversity have been proposed. One such example of a process that may further improve gender equity was proposed by editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine to assess current representation via demographics including gender, race, and ethnicity of authors with plans to assess patterns in the coming years.¹⁴ The American College of Physicians also published a position paper on achieving gender equity with a recommendation that organizational policies and procedures should be implemented that address implicit bias.¹⁵

Our study showed that, from 2015 to 2019, conference evaluations saw a significant increase in the score concurrently with the rise in proportion of women speakers. This finding suggests that quality does not seem to be affected by this new methodology for speaker selection and in fact this methodology may actually help improve the overall quality of the conference. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to concurrently evaluate speaker gender equity with conference quality.

Our study offers several strengths. This study took a pragmatic approach to understanding how processes can impact gender equity, and we were able to take advantage of the evolution of the open call system (ie workshops which have been an open call process for the duration of the study versus speaking opportunities that were not).

Our study also has several limitations. First, this study is retrospective in nature and thus other processes could have contributed to the improved gender equity, such as an organization’s priorities over time. During this study period, the SHM conference saw an average 3% increase annually in women speakers and an increase of 8% from 2018 to 2019 for all speakers compared to national trends of approximately 1%,⁶ which suggests that the open call processes in place could be contributing to the overall increases seen. Similarly, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we cannot be certain that the improvements in conference scores were directly the result of improved gender equity, although it does suggest that the improvements in gender equity did not have an adverse impact on the scores. We also did not assess how the composition of selection committee members for the meeting could have impacted the overall composition of the speakers. Our study looked at diversity only from the perspective of gender in a binary fashion, and thus additional studies are needed to assess how to improve diversity overall. It is unclear how this new open call for speakers affects race and ethnic diversity specifically. Identifying gender for the purposes of this study was facilitated by speakers providing their own biographies and the respective pronouns used in those biographies, and thus gender was easier to ascertain than race and ethnicity, which are not as readily available. For organizations to understand their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, enhancing the ability to fairly track and measure diversity will be key. Lastly, understanding of the exact composition of hospitalists from both a gender and race/ethnicity perspective is lacking. Studies have suggested that, based upon those surveyed or studied, there is a fairly equal balance of men and women albeit in academic groups.³

An open call approach to speakers at a national hospitalist conference seems to have contributed to improvements regarding gender equity in speaking opportunities with a concurrent improvement in overall rating of the conference. The open call system is a potential mechanism that other institutions and organizations could employ to enhance their diversity efforts.

Acknowledgments

Society of Hospital Medicine Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Special Interest Group

Work Group for SPEAK UP: Marisha Burden, MD, Daniel Cabrera, MD, Amira del Pino-Jones, MD, Areeba Kara, MD, Angela Keniston, MSPH, Keshav Khanijow, MD, Flora Kisuule, MD, Chiara Mandel, Benji Mathews, MD, David Paje, MD, Stephan Papp, MD, Snehal Patel, MD, Suchita Shah Sata, MD, Dustin Smith, MD, Kevin Vuernick

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a common result of diabetes and represents the most frequent complication requiring hospitalization and lower extremity amputation.^1,2 Hospital discharges related to diabetic lower extremity ulcers increased from 72,000 in 1988 to 113,000 in 2007,³ and admissions related to infection rose 30% between 2005 and 2010.² Ulceration and amputation are associated with a 40% to 50% 5-year mortality rate.^4,5

Aggressive risk-factor management and interprofessional care can significantly reduce major amputations and mortality.^6-13 Consistent and high-quality care for patients admitted with DFI is essential for optimizing outcomes; however, management varies widely, and critical assessment and prevention measures are often not employed by providers.¹⁴ This review synthesizes recommendations from existing guidelines to provide an overview of the best practices for the diagnosis, management, and discharge of DFI in the hospital setting (Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figure).

The first step in the management of a DFI is a careful assessment of the presence and depth of infection.¹⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend using at least 2 signs of classic inflammation (erythema, warmth, swelling, tenderness, or pain) or purulent drainage to diagnose soft tissue infection.^1,15,16 Patients with ischemia may present atypically, with nonpurulent secretions, friable or discolored granulation tissue, undermining of wound edges, and foul odor. ^1,15,16 Additional risk factors for DFI include ulceration for more than 30 days, recurrent foot ulcers, a traumatic foot wound, severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the affected limb (ankle brachial index [ABI] <0.4), prior lower extremity amputation, loss of protective sensation, end-stage renal disease, and a history of walking barefoot.^15,17,18

jhm012120994_t1.jpg

In practice, the decision to admit is based on clinical and systems-based drivers (Supplementary Table 2). The IDSA and IWGDF guidelines recommend hospitalization for patients with severe (PEDIS grade 4) infection, moderate (PEDIS grade 3) infection with certain complications (eg, severe PAD or lack of home support), an inability to comply with required outpatient treatment, lack of improvement with outpatient therapy, or presence of metabolic or hemodynamic instability.^1,15 Clinicians must also consider the need for surgical debridement or complex antibiotic choices due to allergies and comorbidities. Hospitalists may also consider admission in cases in which outpatient follow-up cannot be easily arranged (eg, uninsured patients).

Outpatient management may be appropriate for patients with mild infections who are willing to be reassessed within 72 hours, or sooner if the infection worsens.²³ For patients with moderate infections (eg, osteomyelitis without systemic signs of infection), access to an outpatient interprofessional DFI care team can potentially decrease the need for admission.

Clinical features that raise suspicion for osteomyelitis include ulceration for at least 6 weeks with appropriate wound care and offloading, wound extension to the bone or joint, exposed bone, ulcers larger than 2 cm², previous history of a wound, multiple wounds, and appearance of a sausage digit.¹⁵

The gold standard for diagnosis of osteomyelitis is a bone biopsy with histology. In the absence of histology, physicians rely on physical examination, inflammatory markers, and imaging to make the diagnosis. The presence of visible, chronically exposed bone within a forefoot ulcer is diagnostic. The accuracy of a probe to bone test depends on the pretest probability of osteomyelitis. Sensitivity and specificity range from 60% to 87% and from 85% to 91%, respectively.²⁴ For patients with a single forefoot ulcer and PEDIS grade 2 or 3 infection, considering both ulcer depth and serum inflammatory markers (ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or C-reactive protein greater than 3.2 mg/dL; ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 60 mm/h) increases sensitivity to 100%, although the specificity is relatively low (55% and 60%, respectively).²⁵ When the diagnosis remains uncertain by physical examination, imaging is necessary for further evaluation.

All patients with DFI should have plain radiographs to look for foot deformities, soft tissue gas, foreign bodies, and osteomyelitis. If plain radiographs show classic evidence of osteomyelitis, (ie, cortical erosion, periosteal reaction, mixed lucency, and sclerosis in the absence of neuro-osteoarthropathy), advanced imaging is not necessary. However, these changes may not appear on plain films for up to 1 month after infection onset.^15,26

The purpose of advanced imaging in the inpatient management of DFI is to detect conditions not obvious by physical examination or by plain radiographs that would alter surgical management (ie, deep abscess or necrotic bone) or antibiotic duration (ie, osteomyelitis or tenosynovitis).¹⁵ Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic modality of choice when the wound does not probe to bone and the diagnosis remains uncertain²⁷ due to its accuracy and availability.^1,15 However, MRI cannot always distinguish between infection and neuro-osteoarthropathy, especially in patients who have infection superimposed on a Charcot foot, have had recent surgical intervention, or have osteosynthesis material at the infection site.²⁴ If MRI is contraindicated, guidelines vary on the next recommended test. The IDSA and the Society for Vascular Surgery recommend a labeled white blood cell scan combined with a bone scan, whereas the IWGDF recommends a labeled leukocyte scan, a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT), or a fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) scan.^1,15,19 A recent comparison of a labeled white blood cell SPECT/CT versus MRI (using histology as the gold standard) reported that SPECT/CT had a similar sensitivity (89% versus 87%, respectively) and specificity (35% versus 37%, respectively) to MRI.²⁸ In practice, physicians should consider which studies are readily available and confidently interpreted by radiologists at their institution.

After infection is diagnosed and staged, clinicians should determine the underlying derangement in order to prevent recurrence after discharge. Common derangements leading to ulceration in diabetics include PAD, neuropathy, muscular tension, altered foot mechanics, trauma, or a combination of the above.^1,15,29-31 All patients with DFI should undergo pedal perfusion assessment by an ABI, ankle and pedal Doppler arterial waveforms, and either toe brachial index (TBI) or transcutaneous oxygen pressure.^1,15,19 In cases of suspected calcification, TBI is a more reliable measure of ischemia compared with the ABI.^16,19 For patients with signs and symptoms of ischemia and an abnormal ABI or TBI measurement (ABI <0.9 and TBI <0.7), a nonurgent consultation with a vascular surgeon is recommended, while patients with severe ischemia (ABI <0.4) usually require urgent revascularization.^15,32

A sensory examination with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament should be conducted to identify patients with loss of protective sensation who may benefit from offloading devices and custom orthotics.¹⁵ Foot anatomy and mechanics as well as potential Achilles tendon contractures should be evaluated by a foot specialist such as a podiatrist, orthotist, orthopedist, or vascular surgeon, especially if debridement or amputation is being contemplated.

After diagnosing the infection clinically, appropriately obtained cultures are essential to guide therapy in all except mild cases with no prior antibiotic exposure or MRSA risk.^1,15 Guidelines strongly recommend that specimens be obtained by biopsy or curettage from deep tissue at the base of the ulcer after the wound has been cleansed and debrided and prior to initiating antibiotics.^1,15,33 Aspiration of purulent secretions using a sterile needle and syringe is another acceptable culturing method.¹⁵ While convenient, swab cultures are prone to both false-positive and false-negative results.³⁴ Repeat cultures are only needed for patients who are not responding to treatment or for surveillance of resistant organisms.¹

In cases of osteomyelitis, bone specimens should be sent for culture and histology either during surgical debridement or a bone biopsy. At the time of debridement, cultures and pathology should be sent from the proximal (clean) bone margin in order to document whether there is residual osteomyelitis postdebridement.³⁵ For patients not planned for debridement, a bone biopsy is recommended if the diagnosis of osteomyelitis is unclear, response to empiric therapy is poor, broad-spectrum antibiotics are being considered, or the infection is in the midfoot or hindfoot.^1,15,19 Results from soft tissue or sinus tract specimens should not be used to guide antibiotic selection in osteomyelitis, as several studies suggest that they do not correlate with bone culture results; one retrospective review found a mere 22.5% correlation between wound swabs and bone biopsy.^1,36 A 2-week antibiotic-free period prior to biopsy is recommended in order to minimize the risk of false-negative results but must be balanced with the risk of worsening infection.^1,15 If possible, the biopsy should be performed through uninfected tissue under fluoroscopy or CT guidance, with 2 to 3 cores obtained for culture and histology.^1,15

A growing number of health systems have created inpatient and/or outpatient interprofessional diabetic foot care teams, and several studies demonstrated an association between these teams and a reduction in major amputations.^7-11,13 The goal of the inpatient team is to rapidly triage patients with moderate to severe infections, expedite surgical interventions and culture collection, establish an effective treatment plan, and ensure adherence postdischarge to optimize outcomes. The common core of most teams includes podiatry, endocrinology, wound care, and vascular surgery, but team composition may vary based on the availability of local specialists with interest and expertise in DFI.^9,10,33

The division of consultation between podiatry and orthopedic surgery is highly dependent upon individual practice patterns and hospital structure. In general, forefoot ulcers may be managed by podiatry or orthopedic surgery, while severe Charcot deformities are most often treated by orthopedic surgeons. Wound care nurses are often integral to successful wound healing, collaborating across specialties and serving as a weekly or biweekly point of contact for patients.

Early involvement of Infectious Disease (ID) specialists can be useful for guiding antibiotic choices and facilitating follow-up. ID should be involved with patients who require long-term antibiotic therapy (ie, cases of deep-tissue infection that are not completely amputated or debrided), have failed outpatient or empiric therapy, have antibiotic allergies or drug-resistant pathogens, or are being considered for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.

jhm012120994_f1.jpg

The duration of antibiotic treatment for DFI is based on the severity of infection and response to treatment (Supplementary Table 3). Treatment should continue until the signs and symptoms of infection resolve, but there is no strong evidence to support treatment through complete healing. Healing will usually occur in 1 to 2 weeks for mild infections and in 2 to 3 weeks for moderate or severe infections. However, prescribing antibiotics for a fixed duration is not recommended and can result in an inadequate or unnecessarily prolonged course, with the potential for increased costs, adverse events, and antibiotic resistance.^1,15,16 Therapy may be shortened by debridement, resection, or amputation, or lengthened in patients who are immunocompromised; have deep, large, necrotic, or poorly perfused wounds; do not undergo resection; or have an implanted foreign body at the infection site.¹ If the patient does not improve despite targeted antibiotic treatment, providers should assess the need to revascularize, repeat debridement for new cultures, resect any progression of infection, or modify the antibiotic regimen to maximize tissue penetration and minimize drug interactions.¹

Traditional management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis has relied almost exclusively on resection of all infected bone. However, data have emerged over the last 10 years to support initial medical management of select patients. Further research regarding the optimal treatment regimen and duration is ongoing, with 1 recent, randomized control trial comparing 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotics for patients treated medically for osteomyelitis finding no difference in remission rates.^1,41 Patients managed surgically for osteomyelitis are often treated parenterally for at least 4 weeks, but this practice is not based on strong evidence, and guidelines suggest most patients could be switched to highly bioavailable oral agents after a shorter course of intravenous therapy.^1,15 Guidelines recommend 2 to 5 days of antibiotics after complete resection of infected bone and soft tissue (Supplementary Table 3). If the infected soft tissue remains, 1 to 3 weeks of therapy is usually sufficient, while 4 to 6 weeks is often needed if there is residually infected but viable bone.¹⁵

jhm012120994_t2.jpg

In patients with osteomyelitis, the decision between medical and surgical management is complex. Absolute indications for surgical resection include systemic toxicity with associated tissue infection, an open or infected joint space, and patients with prosthetic heart valves.²⁷ However, the need for surgery is unclear beyond these absolute indications, and approximately two-thirds of osteomyelitis cases may be arrested or cured with antibiotic therapy alone.¹ A prospective randomized comparative trial of patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis found that patients treated with 90 days of antibiotics had similar healing rates, times to healing, and short-term complications as compared with those who underwent conservative bone resection.⁴⁴ While further research is needed to determine which types of patients with osteomyelitis may be successfully treated without surgery, the IWGDF, the IDSA, and osteomyelitis experts have offered guidance on this decision (Table 2).^1,15,27 If resection is necessary, hospitalists should request at least 4 specimens to help guide postoperative antibiotic therapy (1 sample for histology and 1 for microbiology, at both the grossly abnormal bone and the bone margin), as negative margin cultures predict a lower relapse risk for infection.^1,35

Every effort should be made to preserve the limb, and urgent amputation is rarely needed except in cases with extensive necrosis or life-threatening infection. Elective amputation may be considered for patients who have recurrent ulceration or irreversible loss of foot function or who would require an excessively prolonged or intensive hospital stay.¹⁵ All patients with plantar ulcers that are unresponsive to conservative management and limited ankle dorsiflexion should be evaluated for pressure-relieving surgeries, such as Achilles lengthening and gastrocnemius recession.^45,46 Studies suggest that pressure-relieving surgeries can increase rates of ulcer healing from 88% to 100% when added to total contact casting.⁴⁷

Guidelines suggest that patients be clinically stable before discharge, complete any urgent surgery, achieve acceptable glycemic control, and be presented with a comprehensive outpatient plan, including antibiotic therapy, offloading, wound care instructions, and outpatient follow-up (Supplementary Table 4). Physicians must consider patient and family preferences, expected adherence to therapy, availability of home support, and payer and cost issues when creating the discharge plan.¹⁵

An effective outpatient care team is critical to ensure wound healing and infection resolution. Efforts should be made to discharge patients to a comprehensive outpatient interprofessional foot care team, with a plan that includes professional foot care, patient education, and adequate footwear.⁴⁸ Team composition varies but often includes representatives from vascular surgery, podiatry, orthotics, wound care, endocrinology, orthopedics, physical therapy and rehabilitation, infectious disease, and dermatology.^11-13Interprofessional outpatient clinics can ease the burden of transportation and shorten the time to needed interventions in the case of treatment failure. Follow-up appointments within 1 to 2 weeks postdischarge have been found to reduce the risk of readmission in other high-risk conditions, and this is a reasonable time frame for DFI as well.⁴⁹

DFIs are a common cause of morbidity in patients with diabetes and result in significant costs to the US healthcare system. Hospitalized patients with a DFI require appropriate classification of wound severity and assessment of vascular status, protective sensation, and potential osteomyelitis. Inpatient management of these patients includes obtaining necessary cultures, choosing an antibiotic regimen based on infection severity and the likely causative agent, and evaluating the need for surgical intervention. Prior to discharge, providers should determine a comprehensive follow-up plan and ensure patient engagement. Finally, interprofessional management has been shown to improve outcomes in DFI and should be adopted in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a common result of diabetes and represents the most frequent complication requiring hospitalization and lower extremity amputation.^1,2 Hospital discharges related to diabetic lower extremity ulcers increased from 72,000 in 1988 to 113,000 in 2007,³ and admissions related to infection rose 30% between 2005 and 2010.² Ulceration and amputation are associated with a 40% to 50% 5-year mortality rate.^4,5

Aggressive risk-factor management and interprofessional care can significantly reduce major amputations and mortality.^6-13 Consistent and high-quality care for patients admitted with DFI is essential for optimizing outcomes; however, management varies widely, and critical assessment and prevention measures are often not employed by providers.¹⁴ This review synthesizes recommendations from existing guidelines to provide an overview of the best practices for the diagnosis, management, and discharge of DFI in the hospital setting (Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figure).

The first step in the management of a DFI is a careful assessment of the presence and depth of infection.¹⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend using at least 2 signs of classic inflammation (erythema, warmth, swelling, tenderness, or pain) or purulent drainage to diagnose soft tissue infection.^1,15,16 Patients with ischemia may present atypically, with nonpurulent secretions, friable or discolored granulation tissue, undermining of wound edges, and foul odor. ^1,15,16 Additional risk factors for DFI include ulceration for more than 30 days, recurrent foot ulcers, a traumatic foot wound, severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the affected limb (ankle brachial index [ABI] <0.4), prior lower extremity amputation, loss of protective sensation, end-stage renal disease, and a history of walking barefoot.^15,17,18

jhm012120994_t1.jpg

In practice, the decision to admit is based on clinical and systems-based drivers (Supplementary Table 2). The IDSA and IWGDF guidelines recommend hospitalization for patients with severe (PEDIS grade 4) infection, moderate (PEDIS grade 3) infection with certain complications (eg, severe PAD or lack of home support), an inability to comply with required outpatient treatment, lack of improvement with outpatient therapy, or presence of metabolic or hemodynamic instability.^1,15 Clinicians must also consider the need for surgical debridement or complex antibiotic choices due to allergies and comorbidities. Hospitalists may also consider admission in cases in which outpatient follow-up cannot be easily arranged (eg, uninsured patients).

Outpatient management may be appropriate for patients with mild infections who are willing to be reassessed within 72 hours, or sooner if the infection worsens.²³ For patients with moderate infections (eg, osteomyelitis without systemic signs of infection), access to an outpatient interprofessional DFI care team can potentially decrease the need for admission.

Clinical features that raise suspicion for osteomyelitis include ulceration for at least 6 weeks with appropriate wound care and offloading, wound extension to the bone or joint, exposed bone, ulcers larger than 2 cm², previous history of a wound, multiple wounds, and appearance of a sausage digit.¹⁵

The gold standard for diagnosis of osteomyelitis is a bone biopsy with histology. In the absence of histology, physicians rely on physical examination, inflammatory markers, and imaging to make the diagnosis. The presence of visible, chronically exposed bone within a forefoot ulcer is diagnostic. The accuracy of a probe to bone test depends on the pretest probability of osteomyelitis. Sensitivity and specificity range from 60% to 87% and from 85% to 91%, respectively.²⁴ For patients with a single forefoot ulcer and PEDIS grade 2 or 3 infection, considering both ulcer depth and serum inflammatory markers (ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or C-reactive protein greater than 3.2 mg/dL; ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 60 mm/h) increases sensitivity to 100%, although the specificity is relatively low (55% and 60%, respectively).²⁵ When the diagnosis remains uncertain by physical examination, imaging is necessary for further evaluation.

All patients with DFI should have plain radiographs to look for foot deformities, soft tissue gas, foreign bodies, and osteomyelitis. If plain radiographs show classic evidence of osteomyelitis, (ie, cortical erosion, periosteal reaction, mixed lucency, and sclerosis in the absence of neuro-osteoarthropathy), advanced imaging is not necessary. However, these changes may not appear on plain films for up to 1 month after infection onset.^15,26

The purpose of advanced imaging in the inpatient management of DFI is to detect conditions not obvious by physical examination or by plain radiographs that would alter surgical management (ie, deep abscess or necrotic bone) or antibiotic duration (ie, osteomyelitis or tenosynovitis).¹⁵ Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic modality of choice when the wound does not probe to bone and the diagnosis remains uncertain²⁷ due to its accuracy and availability.^1,15 However, MRI cannot always distinguish between infection and neuro-osteoarthropathy, especially in patients who have infection superimposed on a Charcot foot, have had recent surgical intervention, or have osteosynthesis material at the infection site.²⁴ If MRI is contraindicated, guidelines vary on the next recommended test. The IDSA and the Society for Vascular Surgery recommend a labeled white blood cell scan combined with a bone scan, whereas the IWGDF recommends a labeled leukocyte scan, a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT), or a fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) scan.^1,15,19 A recent comparison of a labeled white blood cell SPECT/CT versus MRI (using histology as the gold standard) reported that SPECT/CT had a similar sensitivity (89% versus 87%, respectively) and specificity (35% versus 37%, respectively) to MRI.²⁸ In practice, physicians should consider which studies are readily available and confidently interpreted by radiologists at their institution.

After infection is diagnosed and staged, clinicians should determine the underlying derangement in order to prevent recurrence after discharge. Common derangements leading to ulceration in diabetics include PAD, neuropathy, muscular tension, altered foot mechanics, trauma, or a combination of the above.^1,15,29-31 All patients with DFI should undergo pedal perfusion assessment by an ABI, ankle and pedal Doppler arterial waveforms, and either toe brachial index (TBI) or transcutaneous oxygen pressure.^1,15,19 In cases of suspected calcification, TBI is a more reliable measure of ischemia compared with the ABI.^16,19 For patients with signs and symptoms of ischemia and an abnormal ABI or TBI measurement (ABI <0.9 and TBI <0.7), a nonurgent consultation with a vascular surgeon is recommended, while patients with severe ischemia (ABI <0.4) usually require urgent revascularization.^15,32

A sensory examination with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament should be conducted to identify patients with loss of protective sensation who may benefit from offloading devices and custom orthotics.¹⁵ Foot anatomy and mechanics as well as potential Achilles tendon contractures should be evaluated by a foot specialist such as a podiatrist, orthotist, orthopedist, or vascular surgeon, especially if debridement or amputation is being contemplated.

After diagnosing the infection clinically, appropriately obtained cultures are essential to guide therapy in all except mild cases with no prior antibiotic exposure or MRSA risk.^1,15 Guidelines strongly recommend that specimens be obtained by biopsy or curettage from deep tissue at the base of the ulcer after the wound has been cleansed and debrided and prior to initiating antibiotics.^1,15,33 Aspiration of purulent secretions using a sterile needle and syringe is another acceptable culturing method.¹⁵ While convenient, swab cultures are prone to both false-positive and false-negative results.³⁴ Repeat cultures are only needed for patients who are not responding to treatment or for surveillance of resistant organisms.¹

In cases of osteomyelitis, bone specimens should be sent for culture and histology either during surgical debridement or a bone biopsy. At the time of debridement, cultures and pathology should be sent from the proximal (clean) bone margin in order to document whether there is residual osteomyelitis postdebridement.³⁵ For patients not planned for debridement, a bone biopsy is recommended if the diagnosis of osteomyelitis is unclear, response to empiric therapy is poor, broad-spectrum antibiotics are being considered, or the infection is in the midfoot or hindfoot.^1,15,19 Results from soft tissue or sinus tract specimens should not be used to guide antibiotic selection in osteomyelitis, as several studies suggest that they do not correlate with bone culture results; one retrospective review found a mere 22.5% correlation between wound swabs and bone biopsy.^1,36 A 2-week antibiotic-free period prior to biopsy is recommended in order to minimize the risk of false-negative results but must be balanced with the risk of worsening infection.^1,15 If possible, the biopsy should be performed through uninfected tissue under fluoroscopy or CT guidance, with 2 to 3 cores obtained for culture and histology.^1,15

A growing number of health systems have created inpatient and/or outpatient interprofessional diabetic foot care teams, and several studies demonstrated an association between these teams and a reduction in major amputations.^7-11,13 The goal of the inpatient team is to rapidly triage patients with moderate to severe infections, expedite surgical interventions and culture collection, establish an effective treatment plan, and ensure adherence postdischarge to optimize outcomes. The common core of most teams includes podiatry, endocrinology, wound care, and vascular surgery, but team composition may vary based on the availability of local specialists with interest and expertise in DFI.^9,10,33

The division of consultation between podiatry and orthopedic surgery is highly dependent upon individual practice patterns and hospital structure. In general, forefoot ulcers may be managed by podiatry or orthopedic surgery, while severe Charcot deformities are most often treated by orthopedic surgeons. Wound care nurses are often integral to successful wound healing, collaborating across specialties and serving as a weekly or biweekly point of contact for patients.

Early involvement of Infectious Disease (ID) specialists can be useful for guiding antibiotic choices and facilitating follow-up. ID should be involved with patients who require long-term antibiotic therapy (ie, cases of deep-tissue infection that are not completely amputated or debrided), have failed outpatient or empiric therapy, have antibiotic allergies or drug-resistant pathogens, or are being considered for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.

jhm012120994_f1.jpg

The duration of antibiotic treatment for DFI is based on the severity of infection and response to treatment (Supplementary Table 3). Treatment should continue until the signs and symptoms of infection resolve, but there is no strong evidence to support treatment through complete healing. Healing will usually occur in 1 to 2 weeks for mild infections and in 2 to 3 weeks for moderate or severe infections. However, prescribing antibiotics for a fixed duration is not recommended and can result in an inadequate or unnecessarily prolonged course, with the potential for increased costs, adverse events, and antibiotic resistance.^1,15,16 Therapy may be shortened by debridement, resection, or amputation, or lengthened in patients who are immunocompromised; have deep, large, necrotic, or poorly perfused wounds; do not undergo resection; or have an implanted foreign body at the infection site.¹ If the patient does not improve despite targeted antibiotic treatment, providers should assess the need to revascularize, repeat debridement for new cultures, resect any progression of infection, or modify the antibiotic regimen to maximize tissue penetration and minimize drug interactions.¹

Traditional management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis has relied almost exclusively on resection of all infected bone. However, data have emerged over the last 10 years to support initial medical management of select patients. Further research regarding the optimal treatment regimen and duration is ongoing, with 1 recent, randomized control trial comparing 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotics for patients treated medically for osteomyelitis finding no difference in remission rates.^1,41 Patients managed surgically for osteomyelitis are often treated parenterally for at least 4 weeks, but this practice is not based on strong evidence, and guidelines suggest most patients could be switched to highly bioavailable oral agents after a shorter course of intravenous therapy.^1,15 Guidelines recommend 2 to 5 days of antibiotics after complete resection of infected bone and soft tissue (Supplementary Table 3). If the infected soft tissue remains, 1 to 3 weeks of therapy is usually sufficient, while 4 to 6 weeks is often needed if there is residually infected but viable bone.¹⁵

jhm012120994_t2.jpg

In patients with osteomyelitis, the decision between medical and surgical management is complex. Absolute indications for surgical resection include systemic toxicity with associated tissue infection, an open or infected joint space, and patients with prosthetic heart valves.²⁷ However, the need for surgery is unclear beyond these absolute indications, and approximately two-thirds of osteomyelitis cases may be arrested or cured with antibiotic therapy alone.¹ A prospective randomized comparative trial of patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis found that patients treated with 90 days of antibiotics had similar healing rates, times to healing, and short-term complications as compared with those who underwent conservative bone resection.⁴⁴ While further research is needed to determine which types of patients with osteomyelitis may be successfully treated without surgery, the IWGDF, the IDSA, and osteomyelitis experts have offered guidance on this decision (Table 2).^1,15,27 If resection is necessary, hospitalists should request at least 4 specimens to help guide postoperative antibiotic therapy (1 sample for histology and 1 for microbiology, at both the grossly abnormal bone and the bone margin), as negative margin cultures predict a lower relapse risk for infection.^1,35

Every effort should be made to preserve the limb, and urgent amputation is rarely needed except in cases with extensive necrosis or life-threatening infection. Elective amputation may be considered for patients who have recurrent ulceration or irreversible loss of foot function or who would require an excessively prolonged or intensive hospital stay.¹⁵ All patients with plantar ulcers that are unresponsive to conservative management and limited ankle dorsiflexion should be evaluated for pressure-relieving surgeries, such as Achilles lengthening and gastrocnemius recession.^45,46 Studies suggest that pressure-relieving surgeries can increase rates of ulcer healing from 88% to 100% when added to total contact casting.⁴⁷

Guidelines suggest that patients be clinically stable before discharge, complete any urgent surgery, achieve acceptable glycemic control, and be presented with a comprehensive outpatient plan, including antibiotic therapy, offloading, wound care instructions, and outpatient follow-up (Supplementary Table 4). Physicians must consider patient and family preferences, expected adherence to therapy, availability of home support, and payer and cost issues when creating the discharge plan.¹⁵

An effective outpatient care team is critical to ensure wound healing and infection resolution. Efforts should be made to discharge patients to a comprehensive outpatient interprofessional foot care team, with a plan that includes professional foot care, patient education, and adequate footwear.⁴⁸ Team composition varies but often includes representatives from vascular surgery, podiatry, orthotics, wound care, endocrinology, orthopedics, physical therapy and rehabilitation, infectious disease, and dermatology.^11-13Interprofessional outpatient clinics can ease the burden of transportation and shorten the time to needed interventions in the case of treatment failure. Follow-up appointments within 1 to 2 weeks postdischarge have been found to reduce the risk of readmission in other high-risk conditions, and this is a reasonable time frame for DFI as well.⁴⁹

DFIs are a common cause of morbidity in patients with diabetes and result in significant costs to the US healthcare system. Hospitalized patients with a DFI require appropriate classification of wound severity and assessment of vascular status, protective sensation, and potential osteomyelitis. Inpatient management of these patients includes obtaining necessary cultures, choosing an antibiotic regimen based on infection severity and the likely causative agent, and evaluating the need for surgical intervention. Prior to discharge, providers should determine a comprehensive follow-up plan and ensure patient engagement. Finally, interprofessional management has been shown to improve outcomes in DFI and should be adopted in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a common result of diabetes and represents the most frequent complication requiring hospitalization and lower extremity amputation.^1,2 Hospital discharges related to diabetic lower extremity ulcers increased from 72,000 in 1988 to 113,000 in 2007,³ and admissions related to infection rose 30% between 2005 and 2010.² Ulceration and amputation are associated with a 40% to 50% 5-year mortality rate.^4,5

Aggressive risk-factor management and interprofessional care can significantly reduce major amputations and mortality.^6-13 Consistent and high-quality care for patients admitted with DFI is essential for optimizing outcomes; however, management varies widely, and critical assessment and prevention measures are often not employed by providers.¹⁴ This review synthesizes recommendations from existing guidelines to provide an overview of the best practices for the diagnosis, management, and discharge of DFI in the hospital setting (Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figure).

The first step in the management of a DFI is a careful assessment of the presence and depth of infection.¹⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend using at least 2 signs of classic inflammation (erythema, warmth, swelling, tenderness, or pain) or purulent drainage to diagnose soft tissue infection.^1,15,16 Patients with ischemia may present atypically, with nonpurulent secretions, friable or discolored granulation tissue, undermining of wound edges, and foul odor. ^1,15,16 Additional risk factors for DFI include ulceration for more than 30 days, recurrent foot ulcers, a traumatic foot wound, severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the affected limb (ankle brachial index [ABI] <0.4), prior lower extremity amputation, loss of protective sensation, end-stage renal disease, and a history of walking barefoot.^15,17,18

jhm012120994_t1.jpg

In practice, the decision to admit is based on clinical and systems-based drivers (Supplementary Table 2). The IDSA and IWGDF guidelines recommend hospitalization for patients with severe (PEDIS grade 4) infection, moderate (PEDIS grade 3) infection with certain complications (eg, severe PAD or lack of home support), an inability to comply with required outpatient treatment, lack of improvement with outpatient therapy, or presence of metabolic or hemodynamic instability.^1,15 Clinicians must also consider the need for surgical debridement or complex antibiotic choices due to allergies and comorbidities. Hospitalists may also consider admission in cases in which outpatient follow-up cannot be easily arranged (eg, uninsured patients).

Outpatient management may be appropriate for patients with mild infections who are willing to be reassessed within 72 hours, or sooner if the infection worsens.²³ For patients with moderate infections (eg, osteomyelitis without systemic signs of infection), access to an outpatient interprofessional DFI care team can potentially decrease the need for admission.

Clinical features that raise suspicion for osteomyelitis include ulceration for at least 6 weeks with appropriate wound care and offloading, wound extension to the bone or joint, exposed bone, ulcers larger than 2 cm², previous history of a wound, multiple wounds, and appearance of a sausage digit.¹⁵

The gold standard for diagnosis of osteomyelitis is a bone biopsy with histology. In the absence of histology, physicians rely on physical examination, inflammatory markers, and imaging to make the diagnosis. The presence of visible, chronically exposed bone within a forefoot ulcer is diagnostic. The accuracy of a probe to bone test depends on the pretest probability of osteomyelitis. Sensitivity and specificity range from 60% to 87% and from 85% to 91%, respectively.²⁴ For patients with a single forefoot ulcer and PEDIS grade 2 or 3 infection, considering both ulcer depth and serum inflammatory markers (ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or C-reactive protein greater than 3.2 mg/dL; ulcer depth greater than 3 mm, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 60 mm/h) increases sensitivity to 100%, although the specificity is relatively low (55% and 60%, respectively).²⁵ When the diagnosis remains uncertain by physical examination, imaging is necessary for further evaluation.

All patients with DFI should have plain radiographs to look for foot deformities, soft tissue gas, foreign bodies, and osteomyelitis. If plain radiographs show classic evidence of osteomyelitis, (ie, cortical erosion, periosteal reaction, mixed lucency, and sclerosis in the absence of neuro-osteoarthropathy), advanced imaging is not necessary. However, these changes may not appear on plain films for up to 1 month after infection onset.^15,26

The purpose of advanced imaging in the inpatient management of DFI is to detect conditions not obvious by physical examination or by plain radiographs that would alter surgical management (ie, deep abscess or necrotic bone) or antibiotic duration (ie, osteomyelitis or tenosynovitis).¹⁵ Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic modality of choice when the wound does not probe to bone and the diagnosis remains uncertain²⁷ due to its accuracy and availability.^1,15 However, MRI cannot always distinguish between infection and neuro-osteoarthropathy, especially in patients who have infection superimposed on a Charcot foot, have had recent surgical intervention, or have osteosynthesis material at the infection site.²⁴ If MRI is contraindicated, guidelines vary on the next recommended test. The IDSA and the Society for Vascular Surgery recommend a labeled white blood cell scan combined with a bone scan, whereas the IWGDF recommends a labeled leukocyte scan, a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT), or a fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) scan.^1,15,19 A recent comparison of a labeled white blood cell SPECT/CT versus MRI (using histology as the gold standard) reported that SPECT/CT had a similar sensitivity (89% versus 87%, respectively) and specificity (35% versus 37%, respectively) to MRI.²⁸ In practice, physicians should consider which studies are readily available and confidently interpreted by radiologists at their institution.

After infection is diagnosed and staged, clinicians should determine the underlying derangement in order to prevent recurrence after discharge. Common derangements leading to ulceration in diabetics include PAD, neuropathy, muscular tension, altered foot mechanics, trauma, or a combination of the above.^1,15,29-31 All patients with DFI should undergo pedal perfusion assessment by an ABI, ankle and pedal Doppler arterial waveforms, and either toe brachial index (TBI) or transcutaneous oxygen pressure.^1,15,19 In cases of suspected calcification, TBI is a more reliable measure of ischemia compared with the ABI.^16,19 For patients with signs and symptoms of ischemia and an abnormal ABI or TBI measurement (ABI <0.9 and TBI <0.7), a nonurgent consultation with a vascular surgeon is recommended, while patients with severe ischemia (ABI <0.4) usually require urgent revascularization.^15,32

A sensory examination with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament should be conducted to identify patients with loss of protective sensation who may benefit from offloading devices and custom orthotics.¹⁵ Foot anatomy and mechanics as well as potential Achilles tendon contractures should be evaluated by a foot specialist such as a podiatrist, orthotist, orthopedist, or vascular surgeon, especially if debridement or amputation is being contemplated.

After diagnosing the infection clinically, appropriately obtained cultures are essential to guide therapy in all except mild cases with no prior antibiotic exposure or MRSA risk.^1,15 Guidelines strongly recommend that specimens be obtained by biopsy or curettage from deep tissue at the base of the ulcer after the wound has been cleansed and debrided and prior to initiating antibiotics.^1,15,33 Aspiration of purulent secretions using a sterile needle and syringe is another acceptable culturing method.¹⁵ While convenient, swab cultures are prone to both false-positive and false-negative results.³⁴ Repeat cultures are only needed for patients who are not responding to treatment or for surveillance of resistant organisms.¹

In cases of osteomyelitis, bone specimens should be sent for culture and histology either during surgical debridement or a bone biopsy. At the time of debridement, cultures and pathology should be sent from the proximal (clean) bone margin in order to document whether there is residual osteomyelitis postdebridement.³⁵ For patients not planned for debridement, a bone biopsy is recommended if the diagnosis of osteomyelitis is unclear, response to empiric therapy is poor, broad-spectrum antibiotics are being considered, or the infection is in the midfoot or hindfoot.^1,15,19 Results from soft tissue or sinus tract specimens should not be used to guide antibiotic selection in osteomyelitis, as several studies suggest that they do not correlate with bone culture results; one retrospective review found a mere 22.5% correlation between wound swabs and bone biopsy.^1,36 A 2-week antibiotic-free period prior to biopsy is recommended in order to minimize the risk of false-negative results but must be balanced with the risk of worsening infection.^1,15 If possible, the biopsy should be performed through uninfected tissue under fluoroscopy or CT guidance, with 2 to 3 cores obtained for culture and histology.^1,15

A growing number of health systems have created inpatient and/or outpatient interprofessional diabetic foot care teams, and several studies demonstrated an association between these teams and a reduction in major amputations.^7-11,13 The goal of the inpatient team is to rapidly triage patients with moderate to severe infections, expedite surgical interventions and culture collection, establish an effective treatment plan, and ensure adherence postdischarge to optimize outcomes. The common core of most teams includes podiatry, endocrinology, wound care, and vascular surgery, but team composition may vary based on the availability of local specialists with interest and expertise in DFI.^9,10,33

The division of consultation between podiatry and orthopedic surgery is highly dependent upon individual practice patterns and hospital structure. In general, forefoot ulcers may be managed by podiatry or orthopedic surgery, while severe Charcot deformities are most often treated by orthopedic surgeons. Wound care nurses are often integral to successful wound healing, collaborating across specialties and serving as a weekly or biweekly point of contact for patients.

Early involvement of Infectious Disease (ID) specialists can be useful for guiding antibiotic choices and facilitating follow-up. ID should be involved with patients who require long-term antibiotic therapy (ie, cases of deep-tissue infection that are not completely amputated or debrided), have failed outpatient or empiric therapy, have antibiotic allergies or drug-resistant pathogens, or are being considered for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.

jhm012120994_f1.jpg

The duration of antibiotic treatment for DFI is based on the severity of infection and response to treatment (Supplementary Table 3). Treatment should continue until the signs and symptoms of infection resolve, but there is no strong evidence to support treatment through complete healing. Healing will usually occur in 1 to 2 weeks for mild infections and in 2 to 3 weeks for moderate or severe infections. However, prescribing antibiotics for a fixed duration is not recommended and can result in an inadequate or unnecessarily prolonged course, with the potential for increased costs, adverse events, and antibiotic resistance.^1,15,16 Therapy may be shortened by debridement, resection, or amputation, or lengthened in patients who are immunocompromised; have deep, large, necrotic, or poorly perfused wounds; do not undergo resection; or have an implanted foreign body at the infection site.¹ If the patient does not improve despite targeted antibiotic treatment, providers should assess the need to revascularize, repeat debridement for new cultures, resect any progression of infection, or modify the antibiotic regimen to maximize tissue penetration and minimize drug interactions.¹

Traditional management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis has relied almost exclusively on resection of all infected bone. However, data have emerged over the last 10 years to support initial medical management of select patients. Further research regarding the optimal treatment regimen and duration is ongoing, with 1 recent, randomized control trial comparing 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotics for patients treated medically for osteomyelitis finding no difference in remission rates.^1,41 Patients managed surgically for osteomyelitis are often treated parenterally for at least 4 weeks, but this practice is not based on strong evidence, and guidelines suggest most patients could be switched to highly bioavailable oral agents after a shorter course of intravenous therapy.^1,15 Guidelines recommend 2 to 5 days of antibiotics after complete resection of infected bone and soft tissue (Supplementary Table 3). If the infected soft tissue remains, 1 to 3 weeks of therapy is usually sufficient, while 4 to 6 weeks is often needed if there is residually infected but viable bone.¹⁵

jhm012120994_t2.jpg

In patients with osteomyelitis, the decision between medical and surgical management is complex. Absolute indications for surgical resection include systemic toxicity with associated tissue infection, an open or infected joint space, and patients with prosthetic heart valves.²⁷ However, the need for surgery is unclear beyond these absolute indications, and approximately two-thirds of osteomyelitis cases may be arrested or cured with antibiotic therapy alone.¹ A prospective randomized comparative trial of patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis found that patients treated with 90 days of antibiotics had similar healing rates, times to healing, and short-term complications as compared with those who underwent conservative bone resection.⁴⁴ While further research is needed to determine which types of patients with osteomyelitis may be successfully treated without surgery, the IWGDF, the IDSA, and osteomyelitis experts have offered guidance on this decision (Table 2).^1,15,27 If resection is necessary, hospitalists should request at least 4 specimens to help guide postoperative antibiotic therapy (1 sample for histology and 1 for microbiology, at both the grossly abnormal bone and the bone margin), as negative margin cultures predict a lower relapse risk for infection.^1,35

Every effort should be made to preserve the limb, and urgent amputation is rarely needed except in cases with extensive necrosis or life-threatening infection. Elective amputation may be considered for patients who have recurrent ulceration or irreversible loss of foot function or who would require an excessively prolonged or intensive hospital stay.¹⁵ All patients with plantar ulcers that are unresponsive to conservative management and limited ankle dorsiflexion should be evaluated for pressure-relieving surgeries, such as Achilles lengthening and gastrocnemius recession.^45,46 Studies suggest that pressure-relieving surgeries can increase rates of ulcer healing from 88% to 100% when added to total contact casting.⁴⁷

Guidelines suggest that patients be clinically stable before discharge, complete any urgent surgery, achieve acceptable glycemic control, and be presented with a comprehensive outpatient plan, including antibiotic therapy, offloading, wound care instructions, and outpatient follow-up (Supplementary Table 4). Physicians must consider patient and family preferences, expected adherence to therapy, availability of home support, and payer and cost issues when creating the discharge plan.¹⁵

An effective outpatient care team is critical to ensure wound healing and infection resolution. Efforts should be made to discharge patients to a comprehensive outpatient interprofessional foot care team, with a plan that includes professional foot care, patient education, and adequate footwear.⁴⁸ Team composition varies but often includes representatives from vascular surgery, podiatry, orthotics, wound care, endocrinology, orthopedics, physical therapy and rehabilitation, infectious disease, and dermatology.^11-13Interprofessional outpatient clinics can ease the burden of transportation and shorten the time to needed interventions in the case of treatment failure. Follow-up appointments within 1 to 2 weeks postdischarge have been found to reduce the risk of readmission in other high-risk conditions, and this is a reasonable time frame for DFI as well.⁴⁹

DFIs are a common cause of morbidity in patients with diabetes and result in significant costs to the US healthcare system. Hospitalized patients with a DFI require appropriate classification of wound severity and assessment of vascular status, protective sensation, and potential osteomyelitis. Inpatient management of these patients includes obtaining necessary cultures, choosing an antibiotic regimen based on infection severity and the likely causative agent, and evaluating the need for surgical intervention. Prior to discharge, providers should determine a comprehensive follow-up plan and ensure patient engagement. Finally, interprofessional management has been shown to improve outcomes in DFI and should be adopted in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest.