Association of Preulcerative Foot Care and Outcomes of Diabetic Foot Ulceration.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the association of preulcerative foot care and outcomes of diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using the Mariner all-payers claims data set included participants with a new DFU from 2010 to 2019. Patients were stratified into two cohorts (foot care and control) based on whether they had received any outpatient foot care within 12 months before DFU. Adjusted comparison was performed by propensity matching for age, sex, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1:2 ratio). Kaplan-Meier estimates and logistic regression examined the association between foot care and outcomes of DFUs. RESULTS: Of the 307,131 patients in the study cohort, 4.7% (n = 14,477) received outpatient preulcerative foot care within the 12-month period before DFU. The rate of major amputation was 1.8% (foot care, 1.2%), and 9.0% of patients had hospitalizations for foot infection within 12 months after DFU (foot care, 7.8%). In the study cohort, patients who received pre-DFU foot care had greater major amputation-free survival (P < .001) on Kaplan-Meier estimate. In both the study and matched cohorts, multivariable analysis demonstrated that foot care was associated with lower odds of major amputation for both study (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.66) and matched (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.72) cohorts, and lower odds of hospitalizations for a foot infection in both study (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and matched (OR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a new DFU, those who received outpatient preulcerative foot care within 12 months of diagnosis had lower risks of major amputation and hospitalizations for foot infection.

Disparities in preventative diabetic foot examination.

The objective of this study was to assess the overall differences in the standard of preventive foot care for patients at risk of diabetic foot ulceration and to identify specific demographic factors affecting these health care practices, including race and ethnicity. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 2011 to 2018 were analyzed. Participants (20 years and older) with diabetes were categorized as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and others (including multiracial participants) based on self-reported race and ethnicity. The primary outcome was foot examination over the past year administered by a medical professional. Logistic regression was performed to examine the effects of race and ethnicity on the annual diabetic foot examination, controlling for age (65 years and older), gender, and health insurance status. Among the 2,836 participants included in the study (weighted percentage: 61.1% were White, 13.9% were Black, 15.1% were Hispanic, 5.4% were Asian, and 4.5% were other), 2,018 (weighted percentage: 71.6%) received annual diabetic foot examination over the past year. Hispanic participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.685; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90) were significantly less likely than White participants to receive an annual foot examination (Black participants: aOR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.83-1.49; Asian participants: aOR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07; other participants: aOR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.10). Factors associated with receipt of foot examination were age 65 years or older (aOR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92) and having health insurance (aOR = 3.02; 95% CI, 2.27-4.03). Our findings suggest that Hispanic adults with diabetes are receiving disproportionately lower rates of preventive foot care compared with their White counterparts. This significant variation in the standard of care for individuals with diabetes reflects the need to further identify factors driving the disparities in preventive foot care services among racial and ethnic minority groups.

Can Emergency Medical Services Utilization Rates Be Used to Measure the Success of An Alcohol Amnesty Policy?

INTRODUCTION: Medical Amnesty/Good Samaritan (MAGS) policies, which eliminate legal charges when students call 9-1-1 for excessive drinking, have been implemented with the goal of reducing barriers to accessing Emergency Medical Services (EMS). This study investigated the impact of MAGS policy implementation on EMS calls on campus and if that EMS call volume could be used to measure policy success. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of alcohol-related EMS calls before and after MAGS implementation at a single large public university campus. Methods: A retrospective review of all 9-1-1 calls to on-campus locations was conducted using patient care records (PCRs) from a collegiate EMS agency responding exclusively to on-campus 9-1-1 calls. Calls were excluded if the PCR was marked "incomplete", were outside the 2015 CBEMS response zone boundaries, or if patient age was <15 or >25 years old to ensure analysis was targeting the on-campus student population. The incidence of alcohol-related 9-1-1 calls was compared between one academic year (AY) prior to (pre-MAGS, AY2015) and two years after MAGS implementation (post-MAGS, AY2016/17). An alcohol-related 9-1-1 call was defined as an EMS provider primary or secondary impression of "Alcohol, Alcohol Intoxication, or Alcohol Ingestion" or a call in which the patient explicitly admitted to alcohol use. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results. Results: Over the three-year study period, the collegiate EMS agency responded to 2440 calls of which 1283 met inclusion criteria. 58 calls were excluded for being incomplete, 227 were outside the original boundaries and 872 were outside the defined age range. Of those calls, 351 were pre-MAGS and 932 were post-MAGS. Of the total 9-1-1 calls, 127 (36.2%) were related to alcohol pre-MAGS and 327 (35.1%) were related to alcohol post-MAGS policy implementation. The relative risk of a 9-1-1 call being made for alcohol-related issues after MAGS implementation was RR = 0.97 (95% CI 0.83-1.14; P = 0.713). Conclusion: Implementation of a MAGS policy was not associated with a significant change in the number of alcohol-related EMS responses. It is unclear if these results reflect ineffective policy implementation or a general reduction in on-campus alcohol consumption. However, using EMS call volume as a marker for policy success and quality improvement offers an innovative tool through which EMS agencies can provide valuable feedback to other system stakeholders.