Analysis reveals rising foot disease management by general practitioners in Australians with diabetes, suggesting a need for improved referral strategies.
Introduction Foot disease is a leading cause of national disease burdens and is driven by diabetes. General practitioners (GPs) play a gatekeeper role in many national healthcare systems. Yet, national foot disease management by GPs has not been explored. We explored the management of foot disease by Australian GPs in people with and without diabetes. Methods We analysed 16 years of annual, cross‐sectional, GP encounter data from the nationally representative Australian Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health study in which a foot disease problem was managed. Factors independently associated with foot disease encounters by GPs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results Foot disease management rates increased from 11.6 per 1000 GP encounters (95% CI: 10.8–12.5) in 2000–2001 to 14.4 (13.3–15.4) in 2015–2016 and 6.1 (5.7–6.6) to 8.7 (8.1–9.3) per 100 Australian people. The rate of GP foot disease management was 2.4‐fold higher in people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes (31.5 [26.4–36.6] vs. 12.9 [11.8–14.0]). Foot disease encounters were positively associated with diabetes, male patients, older patients, English‐speaking backgrounds and having healthcare concession cards (all, p < 0.05); for patients with diabetes, only males were positively associated. Most frequent management actions used were medications, procedures and pathology with referrals, counselling and imaging least frequent. Conclusions Australian GP management rates for foot disease are higher than many more well‐known health conditions and increasing. GPs frequently manage foot disease with medications and procedures, but relatively rarely counsel or refer. Future strategies to improve GP foot disease management and referrals are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazzarini et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: