Is there a relationship between screening for diabetes related foot complications and limb amputation?

Background From the conservative estimates of registrants with the National Diabetes Supply Scheme, we will be soon passing 1.1 Million Australians affected by all types of diabetes. The diabetes complications of foot ulceration and amputation are costly to all. These costs can be reduced with appropriate prevention strategies, starting with identifying people at risk through primary care diabetic foot screening. Yet levels of diabetic foot screening in Australia are difficult to quantify. This presentation aims to report on foot screening rates as recorded in existing academic literature, national health surveys and national database reports. Methods Literature searches included diabetic foot screening that occurred in the primary care setting for populations over 2000 people from 2002 to 2014. Searches were performed using Medline and CINAHL as well as internet searches of Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries health databases. The focus is on type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults, and not gestational diabetes or children. The two primary outcome measures were foot -screening rates as a percentage of adult diabetic population and major lower limb amputation incidence rates from standardised OECD data. Results The most recent and accurate level for Australian population review was in the AUSDIAB (Australian Diabetes and lifestyle survey) from 2004. This survey reported screening in primary care to be as low as 50%. Countries such as the United Kingdom and United States of America have much higher reported rates of foot screening (67-86%) recorded using national databases and web based initiatives that involve patients and clinicians. By comparison major amputation rates for Australia were similar to the United Kingdom at 6.5 versus 5.1 per 100,000 population, but dis-similar to the United States of America at 17 per 100,000 population. Conclusions Australian rates of diabetic foot screening in primary care centres is ambiguous. There is no direct relationship between foot screening levels in a primary care environment and major lower limb amputation, based on national health survey's and OECD data. Uptake of national registers, incentives and web-based systems improve levels of diabetic foot assessment, which are the first steps to a healthier diabetic population.

Infrared thermal imaging for automated detection of diabetic foot complications

Background Although thermal imaging can be a valuable technology in the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease, it is not yet widely used in clinical practice. Technological advancement in infrared imaging increases its application range. The aim was to explore the first steps in the applicability of high-resolution infrared thermal imaging for noninvasive automated detection of signs of diabetic foot disease. Methods The plantar foot surfaces of 15 diabetes patients were imaged with an infrared camera (resolution, 1.2 mm/pixel): 5 patients had no visible signs of foot complications, 5 patients had local complications (e.g., abundant callus or neuropathic ulcer), and 5 patients had difuse complications (e.g., Charcot foot, infected ulcer, or critical ischemia). Foot temperature was calculated as mean temperature across pixels for the whole foot and for specified regions of interest (ROIs). Results No diferences in mean temperature >1.5 °C between the ipsilateral and the contralateral foot were found in patients without complications. In patients with local complications, mean temperatures of the ipsilateral and the contralateral foot were similar, but temperature at the ROI was >2 °C higher compared with the corresponding region in the contralateral foot and to the mean of the whole ipsilateral foot. In patients with difuse complications, mean temperature diferences of >3 °C between ipsilateral and contralateral foot were found. Conclusions With an algorithm based on parameters that can be captured and analyzed with a high-resolution infrared camera and a computer, it is possible to detect signs of diabetic foot disease and to discriminate between no, local, or difuse diabetic foot complications. As such, an intelligent telemedicine monitoring system for noninvasive automated detection of signs of diabetic foot disease is one step closer. Future studies are essential to confirm and extend these promising early findings.

Diagnostic values for skin temperature assessment to detect diabetes-related foot complications

Background Skin temperature assessment is a promising modality for early detection of diabetic foot problems, but its diagnostic value has not been studied. Our aims were to investigate the diagnostic value of different cutoff skin temperature values for detecting diabetes-related foot complications such as ulceration, infection, and Charcot foot and to determine urgency of treatment in case of diagnosed infection or a red-hot swollen foot. Materials and Methods The plantar foot surfaces of 54 patients with diabetes visiting the outpatient foot clinic were imaged with an infrared camera. Nine patients had complications requiring immediate treatment, 25 patients had complications requiring non-immediate treatment, and 20 patients had no complications requiring treatment. Average pixel temperature was calculated for six predefined spots and for the whole foot. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for different cutoff skin temperature values using clinical assessment as reference and defined the sensitivity and specificity for the most optimal cutoff temperature value. Mean temperature difference between feet was analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for detection of diabetes-related foot complications was a 2.2°C difference between contralateral spots (sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 40%). The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for determining urgency of treatment was a 1.35°C difference between the mean temperature of the left and right foot (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 78%). Conclusions Detection of diabetes-related foot complications based on local skin temperature assessment is hindered by low diagnostic values. Mean temperature difference between two feet may be an adequate marker for determining urgency of treatment.

Automatic detection of diabetic foot complications with infrared thermography by asymmetric analysis

Early identification of diabetic foot complications and their precursors is essential in preventing their devastating consequences, such as foot infection and amputation. Frequent, automatic risk assessment by an intelligent telemedicine system might be feasible and cost effective. Infrared thermography is a promising modality for such a system. The temperature differences between corresponding areas on contralateral feet are the clinically significant parameters. This asymmetric analysis is hindered by (1) foot segmentation errors, especially when the foot temperature and the ambient temperature are comparable, and by (2) different shapes and sizes between contralateral feet due to deformities or minor amputations. To circumvent the first problem, we used a color image and a thermal image acquired synchronously. Foot regions, detected in the color image, were rigidly registered to the thermal image. This resulted in 97.8% ± 1.1% sensitivity and 98.4% ± 0.5% specificity over 76 high-risk diabetic patients with manual annotation as a reference. Nonrigid landmark-based registration with Bsplines solved the second problem. Corresponding points in the two feet could be found regardless of the shapes and sizes of the feet. With that, the temperature difference of the left and right feet could be obtained.

How many inpatients in our hospitals have foot complications? The foot disease in inpatients study

Background Foot complications have been found to affect large proportions of hospital in patients with diabetes. However, no studies have investigated the proportion of foot complications affecting all people in general inpatient populations. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the point-prevalence of different foot complications in general inpatient populations, analyse differences in diabetes and non-diabetes sub-groups, and examine characteristics of people primarily admitted for a foot complication. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. All participants underwent a physical foot examination, by trained podiatrists using validated measures, to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN). Data were also collected on participants' primary reason for admission and a range of demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot complication history, self-care and footwear risk factors. Results Overall, 733 participants consented (83% of eligible participants); mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 480 (55.8%) male and 172 (23.5%) had diabetes. Foot complication prevalence included: wounds 9.0% (95% CI) (5.1-8.7), infections 3.3% (2.2-4.9), deformity 22.4% (19.5-26.7), PAD 21.0% (18.2-24.1) and PN 22.0% (19.1-25.1). Diabetes populations had significantly more foot complications than non-diabetes (p < 0.01); wounds (15.7% vs 7.0%), infections (7.1% vs 2.2%), deformity (30.5% vs 19.9%), PAD (35.1% vs 16.7%) and PN (43.3% vs 15.4%). Foot complications were the primary reason for admission in 7.4% (95% CI) (5.7-9.5) of all participants. In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis having a foot complication as the primary reason for admission was independently associated (OR (95% CI) with foot wounds (18.9 (7.3-48.7)), foot infections (6.0 (1.6-22.4)), history of amputation (4.7 (1.3-17.0) and PAD (2.9 (1.3-6.6)). Conclusions Findings of this study indicate one in every ten hospital inpatients had an active foot wound or infection. In patients with diabetes had significantly higher proportions of foot complications than non-diabetes inpatients. Remarkably one in every thirteen inpatients in this study were primarily hospitalised for a foot complication. Further research and policy is required to tackle this seemingly large inpatient foot complication burden.

Foot complications in Type 2 diabetes : an Australian population-based study

Aims To determine the prevalence and risk factors for neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) in the Australian diabetic population and identify those at high risk of foot ulceration.

Methods The Australian Diabetes Obesity and Lifestyle study included 11 247 adults aged ≥ 25 years in 42 randomly selected areas of Australia. Neuropathy and PVD were assessed in participants identified as having diabetes (based on self report and oral glucose tolerance test), impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance and in a random sample with normal glucose tolerance (total n = 2436).

Results The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy was 13.1% in those with known diabetes (KDM) and 7.1% in those with newly diagnosed (NDM). The prevalence of PVD was 13.9% in KDM and 6.9% in NDM. Of those with diabetes, 19.6% were at risk of foot ulceration. Independent risk factors for peripheral neuropathy were diabetes duration (odds ratio (95% CI) 1.73 (1.33–2.28) per 10 years), height (1.42 (1.08–1.88) per 10 cm), age (2.57 (1.94–3.40) per 10 years) and uric acid (1.59 (1.21–2.09) per 0.1 mmol/l). Risk factors for PVD were diabetes duration (1.64 (1.25–2.16) per 10 years), age (2.45 (1.86–3.22) per 10 years), smoking (2.07 (1.00–4.28)), uric acid (1.03 (1.00–1.06) per 0.1 mmol/l) and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (1.11 (1.01–1.21) per 1 mg/mmol).

Conclusions The prevalence of neuropathy and PVD was lower in this population than has been reported in other populations. This may reflect differences in sampling methods between community and hospital-based populations. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the diabetic population had risk factors for foot ulceration.

Standardising practices improves clinical diabetic foot management: the Queensland Diabetic Foot Innovation Project, 2006-09

Objective. The aim of this paper is to report the clinical practice changes resulting from strategies to standardise diabetic foot clinical management in three diverse ambulatory service sites in Queensland, Australia. Methods. Multifaceted strategies were implemented in 2008, including: multidisciplinary teams, clinical pathways, clinical training, clinical indicators, and telehealth support. Prior to the intervention, none of the aforementioned strategies were used, except one site had a basic multidisciplinary team. A retrospective audit of consecutive patient records from July 2006 to June 2007 determined baseline clinical activity (n = 101).Aclinical pathway teleform was implemented as a clinical activity analyser in 2008 (n = 327) and followed up in 2009 (n = 406). Pre- and post-implementation data were analysed using Chi-square tests with a significance level set at P < 0.05. Results. There was an improvement in surveillance of the high risk population of 34% in 2008 and 19% in 2009, and treating according to risk of 15% in 2009 (P < 0.05). The documentation of all best-practice clinical activities performed improved 13–66% (P < 0.03). Conclusion. These findings support the use of multifaceted strategies to standardise practice and improve diabetic foot complications management in diverse ambulatory services.

Is simulation training effective in increasing podiatrists' confidence in foot ulcer management?

Background: Foot ulcers are a frequent reason for diabetes-related hospitalisation. Clinical training is known to have a beneficial impact on foot ulcer outcomes. Clinical training using simulation techniques has rarely been used in the management of diabetes-related foot complications or chronic wounds. Simulation can be defined as a device or environment that attempts to replicate the real world. The few non-web-based foot-related simulation courses have focused solely on training for a single skill or “part task” (for example, practicing ingrown toenail procedures on models). This pilot study aimed to primarily investigate the effect of a training program using multiple methods of simulation on participants’ clinical confidence in the management of foot ulcers. Methods: Sixteen podiatrists participated in a two-day Foot Ulcer Simulation Training (FUST) course. The course included pre-requisite web-based learning modules, practicing individual foot ulcer management part tasks (for example, debriding a model foot ulcer), and participating in replicated clinical consultation scenarios (for example, treating a standardised patient (actor) with a model foot ulcer). The primary outcome measure of the course was participants’ pre- and post completion of confidence surveys, using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Unacceptable-5 = Proficient). Participants’ knowledge, satisfaction and their perception of the relevance and fidelity (realism) of a range of course elements were also investigated. Parametric statistics were used to analyse the data. Pearson’s r was used for correlation, ANOVA for testing the differences between groups, and a paired-sample t-test to determine the significance between pre- and post-workshop scores. A minimum significance level of p < 0.05 was used. Results: An overall 42% improvement in clinical confidence was observed following completion of FUST (mean scores 3.10 compared to 4.40, p < 0.05). The lack of an overall significant change in knowledge scores reflected the participant populations’ high baseline knowledge and pre-requisite completion of web-based modules. Satisfaction, relevance and fidelity of all course elements were rated highly. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests simulation training programs can improve participants’ clinical confidence in the management of foot ulcers. The approach has the potential to enhance clinical training in diabetes-related foot complications and chronic wounds in general.

Does the use of store-and-forward telehealth systems improve outcomes for clinicians managing diabetic foot ulcers? : A pilot study

Diabetic foot ulcers are one of the most hospitalised diabetes complications and contribute to many leg amputations. Trained diabetic foot teams and specialists managing diabetic foot ulcers have demonstrated reductions in amputations and hospitalisation by up to 90%. Few such teams exist in Australia. Thus, access is limited for all geographical populations and may somewhat explain the high rates of hospitalisation. Aim: This pilot study aims to analyse if local clinicians managing diabetic foot complications report improved access to diabetic foot specialists and outcomes with the introduction of a telehealth store-and-forward system. Method: A store-and-forward telehealth system was implemented in six different Queensland locations between August 2009 and February 2010. Sites were offered ad hoc and/or fortnightly telehealth access to a diabetic foot speciality service. A survey was sent six months following commencement of the trial to the 14 eligible clinicians involved in the trial to gauge clinical perception of the telehealth system. Results: Eight participants returned the surveys. The majority of responding clinicians reported that the telehealth system was easy to use (100%), improved their access to diabetic foot speciality services (75%), improved upskilling of local diabetes service staff (100%), and improved patient outcomes (100%). Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that clinicians found the use of a telehealth store-and-forward system very useful in improving access to speciality services, clinical skills and patient outcomes. This study supports the recommendation that telehealth systems should be made available for diabetic foot ulcer management.

Standardising practices improves ambulatory diabetic foot management and reduces amputations : the Queensland Diabetic Foot Innovation Project, 2006 – 2009

Background Diabetic foot complications are recognised as the most common reason for diabetic related hospitalisation and lower extremity amputations. Multi-faceted strategies to reduce diabetic foot hospitalisation and amputation rates have been successful. However, most diabetic foot ulcers are managed in ambulatory settings where data availability is poor and studies limited. The project aimed to develop and evaluate strategies to improve the management of diabetic foot complications in three diverse ambulatory settings and measure the subsequent impact on ospitalisation and amputation. Methods Multifaceted strategies were implemented in 2008, including: multi-disciplinary teams, clinical pathways and training, clinical indicators, telehealth support and surveys. A retrospective audit of consecutive patient records from July 2006 – June 2007 determined baseline clinical indicators (n = 101). A clinical pathway teleform was implemented as a clinical record and clinical indicator analyser in all sites in 2008 (n = 327) and followed up in 2009 (n = 406). Results Prior to the intervention, clinical pathways were not used and multi-disciplinary teams were limited. There was an absolute improvement in treating according to risk of 15% in 2009 and surveillance of the high risk population of 34% and 19% in 2008 and 2009 respectively (p < 0.001). Improvements of 13 – 66% (p < 0.001) were recorded in 2008 for individual clinical activities to a performance > 92% in perfusion, ulcer depth, infection assessment and management, offloading and education. Hospitalisation impacts recorded reductions of up to 64% in amputation rates / 100,000 population (p < 0.001) and 24% average length of stay (p < 0.001) Conclusion These findings support the use of multi-faceted strategies in diverse ambulatory services to standardise practice, improve diabetic foot complications management and positively impact on hospitalisation outcomes. As of October 2010, these strategies had been rolled out to over 25 ambulatory sites, representing 66% of Queensland Health districts, managing 1,820 patients and 13,380 occasions of service, including 543 healed ulcer patients. It is expected that this number will rise dramatically as an incentive payment for the use of the teleform is expanded.

Queensland diabetic foot hospitalisations (2005-10) : in what state is our foot hospital problem?

Background Diabetes foot complications are a leading cause of overall avoidable hospital admissions. Since 2006, the Queensland Diabetes Clinical Network has implemented programs aimed at reducing diabetes-related hospitalisation. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to determine the incidence of diabetes foot-related hospital admissions in Queensland from 2005 to 2010. Methods Data on all primary diabetes foot-related admissions in Queensland from 2005-2010 was obtained using diabetes foot-related ICD-10-AM (hospital discharge) codes. Queensland diabetes foot-related admission incidences were calculated using general population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Furthermore, diabetes foot-related sub-group admissions were analysed. Chi-squared tests were used to assess changes in admissions over time. Results Overall, 24,917 diabetes foot-related admissions occurred, resulting in the use of 260,085 bed days or 1.4% of all available Queensland hospital bed days (18,352,152). The primary reasons for these admissions were foot ulcers (49.8%), cellulitis (20.7%), peripheral vascular disease (17.8%) and osteomyelitis (3.8%). The diabetes foot-related admission incidence among the general population (per 100,000) reduced by 22% (103.0 in 2005, to 80.7 in 2010, p < 0.001); bed days decreased by 18% (1,099 to 904, p < 0.001). Conclusion Diabetes foot complications appear to be the primary reason for 1.4 out of every 100 hospital beds used in Queensland. There has been a significant reduction in the incidence of diabetes foot-related admissions in Queensland between 2005 and 2010. This decrease has coincided with a corresponding decrease in amputations and the implementation of several diabetes foot clinical programs throughout Queensland.

Is the clinical Queensland High Risk Foot Form valid or reliable for research?

Background High-risk foot complications such as neuropathy, ischaemia, deformity, infections, ulcers and amputations consume considerable health care resources and typically result from chronic diseases. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool. Methods Phase one involved developing a QHRFF using an existing diabetes high-risk foot tool, literature search, expert panel and several state-wide stakeholder groups. Phase two tested the criterion-related validity along with inter- and intra-rater reliability of the final QHRFF. Three cohorts of patients (n = 94) and four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited. Validity was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics were used to establish reliability. Results A QHRFF tool containing 46-items across seven domains was developed and endorsed. The majority of QHRFF items achieved moderate-to-perfect validity (PPV = 0.71 – 1) and reliability (Kappa/ICC = 0.41 – 1). Items with weak validity and/or reliability included those identifying health professionals previously attending the patient, other (non-listed) co-morbidity, previous foot ulcer, foot deformity, optimum offloading and optimum footwear. Conclusions The QHRFF had moderate-to-perfect validity and reliability across the majority of items, particularly identifying individual co-morbidities and foot complications. Items with weak validity or reliability need to be re-defined or removed. Overall, the QHRFF appears to be a valid and reliable tool to assess, collect and measure clinical data pertaining to high-risk foot complications for clinical or research purposes.

The 2015 IWGDF guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: Development of an evidence-based global consensus

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from 'Practical Guidelines' to 'Guidance'. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems.

How do Australian podiatrists manage patients with diabetes The Australian diabetic foot management survey

Background Diabetic foot complications are the leading cause of lower extremity amputation and diabetes-related hospitalisation in Australia. Studies demonstrate significant reductions in amputations and hospitalisation when health professionals implement best practice management. Whilst other nations have surveyed health professionals on specific diabetic foot management, to the best of the authors’ knowledge this appears not to have occurred in Australia. The primary aim of this study was to examine Australian podiatrists’ diabetic foot management compared with best practice recommendations by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council. Methods A 36-item Australian Diabetic Foot Management survey, employing seven-point Likert scales (0 = Never; 7 = Always) to measure multiple aspects of best practice diabetic foot management was developed. The survey was briefly tested for face and content validity. The survey was electronically distributed to Australian podiatrists via professional associations. Demographics including sex, years treating patients with diabetes, employment-sector and patient numbers were also collected. Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U tests were used to test differences between sub-groups. Results Three hundred and eleven podiatrists responded; 222 (71%) were female, 158 (51%) from the public sector and 11–15 years median experience. Participants reported treating a median of 21–30 diabetes patients each week, including 1–5 with foot ulcers. Overall, participants registered median scores of at least “very often” (>6) in their use of most items covering best practice diabetic foot management. Notable exceptions were: “never” (1 (1 – 3)) using total contact casting, “sometimes” (4 (2 – 5)) performing an ankle brachial index, “sometimes” (4 (1 – 6)) using University of Texas Wound Classification System, and “sometimes” (4 (3 – 6) referring to specialist multi-disciplinary foot teams. Public sector podiatrists reported higher use or access on all those items compared to private sector podiatrists (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study provides the first baseline information on Australian podiatrists’ adherence to best practice diabetic foot guidelines. It appears podiatrists manage large caseloads of people with diabetes and are generally implementing best practice guidelines recommendations with some notable exceptions. Further studies are required to identify barriers to implementing these recommendations to ensure all Australians with diabetes have access to best practice care to prevent amputations.

What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care.