Organizational changes in diabetic foot care practices for patients at low and moderate risk after implementing a comprehensive foot care program in Alberta, Canada

Table 3 Basic Foot Screening – Characteristics of Sites

Provide Basic Screening	2014			2019			P-value*
Provide Basic Screening	Yes	No		Yes	No		P-value*
Zone	N	N	% Yes	N	N	% Yes
North	17	21	45	12	3	80	0.031
Edmonton	17	10	63	11	9	55	0.77
Central	8	9	47	11	2	85	0.056
Calgary	4	2	67	13	3	81	0.59
South	11	2	85	6	2	75	0.62
Federal or provincial	1	0	100	2	0	100	ND
Total of all respondents	58	44	57	55	19	74	See Table 2
Non-respondents	2			1
Area of practice (more than 1 answer possible)
Primary or family practice	14	6	70	20	1	95	0.005
Outpatient	11	7	61	10	3	77	0.452
Acute care	8	11	42	3	4	43	1.00
Wound clinic	8	8	50	7	0	100	0.052
Homecare, long-term care	17	19	47	16	7	60	0.018
Community care	12	5	71	7	1	88	0.623
Other	6	2	75	8	4	67	1.00
No response	1	0	–	0	0	–
Screening Tool Used	N		%	N		%
60 s foot screening tool	50		62	16		31
AHS foot screening tool	–			18		35
Other	31		39	18		35

*p-value < 0.05 by Fisher’s Exact Test was considered significant, comparing “yes” vs “no responses”. ND, not done

ISSN: 1757-1146