Table 5 Comparison between sites utilizing HRFT vs other care models for assessing moderate risk patients
All | HRFT | Clinic/ hospital team | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
N unique sites | 36 | 13 | 20 | |
PHC | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0.574 |
Outpatient | 6 | 3 | 3 | |
Acute care | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Wound clinic | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
HC/LTC | 9 | 5 | 4 | |
Community care | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Private/independent | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
Multiple areas of practice | 6 | 1 | 5 | |
N for geographical location: | 0.015 | |||
Metro & Urban | 21 | 11 | 8 | |
Rural | 10 | 2 | 7 | |
Remote | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
First Nations | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
Services provided | N (%) | N (%) | ||
Skin and nail care | Provide skin & nail care | 5 (38) | 15 (75) | 0.067 |
Provide a list of community resources | 11 (85) | 13 (65) | 0.264 | |
Refer to podiatrist | 9 (69) | 18 (90) | 0.184 | |
Assess structural deformities | Provide education | 11 (85) | 17 (85) | 1.00 |
Refer podiatrist or orthopedic specialist | 11 (85) | 18 (90) | ||
Other | 0 | 2 (10) | – | |
Address footwear problems | Provide education | 13 (100) | 19 (95) | 0.501 |
Refer to AADL | 9 (69) | 7 (35) | 0.0799 | |
Refer without AADL authorization | 8 (62) | 8 (40) | 0.296 | |
Other | 5 (38) | 5 (25) | ||
Assess vascular problems | Perform vascular assessment | 13 (100) | 20 (100) | 1.00 |
Refer to GP | 5 (38) | 16 (80) | 0.0265 | |
Refer to vascular lab | 10 (77) | 10 (50) | 0.1595 | |
Vascular assessment methodology | ABPI | 7 (54) | 8 (40) | 0.4928 |
PPG | 9 (69) | 8 (40) | 0.151 | |
ABPI + PPG | 7 (54) | 7 (35) | 0.472 | |
Pedal pulses | 12 (92) | 12 (60) | 0.0560 | |
Perform all 3 tests | 7 (54) | 7 (35) | 0.472 | |
Other | 1 (8) | 1 (5) | ||
Assess loss of protective sensation | Refer to physician | 10 (77) | 18 (90) | |
Treat neuropathic pain | 3 (23) | 2 (10) |