Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison between sites utilizing HRFT vs other care models for assessing moderate risk patients

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

 AllHRFTClinic/ hospital teamP-value
N unique sites361320 
 Acute care101 
 Wound clinic422 
 Community care101 
 Multiple areas of practice615 
N for geographical location:   0.015
 Metro & Urban21118 
 First Nations303 
Services provided N (%)N (%) 
 Skin and nail careProvide skin & nail care5 (38)15 (75)0.067
Provide a list of community resources11 (85)13 (65)0.264
Refer to podiatrist9 (69)18 (90)0.184
 Assess structural deformitiesProvide education11 (85)17 (85)1.00
Refer podiatrist or orthopedic specialist11 (85)18 (90) 
Other02 (10)
 Address footwear problemsProvide education13 (100)19 (95)0.501
Refer to AADL9 (69)7 (35)0.0799
Refer without AADL authorization8 (62)8 (40)0.296
Other5 (38)5 (25) 
 Assess vascular problemsPerform vascular assessment13 (100)20 (100)1.00
Refer to GP5 (38)16 (80)0.0265
Refer to vascular lab10 (77)10 (50)0.1595
 Vascular assessment methodologyABPI7 (54)8 (40)0.4928
PPG9 (69)8 (40)0.151
ABPI + PPG7 (54)7 (35)0.472
Pedal pulses12 (92)12 (60)0.0560
Perform all 3 tests7 (54)7 (35)0.472
Other1 (8)1 (5) 
 Assess loss of protective sensationRefer to physician10 (77)18 (90) 
Treat neuropathic pain3 (23)2 (10) 
  1. Statistical analysis using Fisher’s Exact Test. For discussion purposes, p < 0.1 was considered significant given the small number of sites available for comparison
  2. Abbreviations: AADL Alberta Aids to Daily Living, ABPI Ankle-brachial pressure index, GP General practitioner, HC/LTC Homecare/long-term care, PHC Primary health care, PPG Photoplethysmography toe pressure
  3. Metro, urban, rural and remote were defined according to Alberta Health Services and Alberta Health criteria [28]. N = 3 sites responded “other” (one referred to home care, two were themselves referral sites)