logo

1 Introduction

The National Cardiovascular Intelligence Network (NCVIN) has published information on diabetes-related foot care since it’s inception in 2013, via the diabetes foot care profile reports. These reports have provided NHS Clinical Commission Groups with tailored information regarding people with diabetes admitted to hospital for foot disease in their area. The reports have been updated annually, with content and format altering slightly each year. This report is the latest edition in this series.

Taking a population health perspective, this report includes analysis assessing the disparities in the risk of complications among patients with diabetes, recent trends in admissions and an evaluation of the geographical variation in foot disease and amputations. It also presents analysis on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted hospital admissions for foot disease in patients with diabetes.

It is intended that the data presented in this report, and the variation they highlight, will be useful in guiding equitable commissioning of foot care services and other preventative interventions.

The information in Sections 2-4 is compiled from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and this release focuses on the latest update to the diabetes foot care profile indicators. This includes admissions and procedures between 2017/18 and 2019/20. Data are presented for England, NHS Regions and Clinical Commissioning Groups. For Section 5, an initial analysis of the admissions data for 2020/21 is included.

The data is also available through Fingertips, which includes data for all different geographies.


Key Information

During the three-year period of 2017/18 to 2019/20:

  • There were 171,759 foot disease-related hospital admissions for patients with diabetes.

  • 97,175 individual patients had a hospital admission for foot disease and 34% had more than one admission over the three years.

  • There were 7,957 major amputations with a directly standardised rate of 8.1 major amputations per 10,000 population with diabetes per year.

  • There were 21,738 minor amputations with a directly standardised rate of 22.1 minor amputations per 10,000 population with diabetes per year.

  • Patients with diabetes that are male, from the most deprived areas, aged over 65 or of white ethnicity had greater risk of amputation.



2 Background

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing, with nearly 3.5 million people registered as having the disease with general practices in England [1]. Lower-limb complications, such as ulceration or amputation, are common among the population with diabetes and have a substantial human cost due to the impact they can have on how an individual can live their life. In 2014/15, the total expenditure on health care related to foot disease for patients with diabetes was close to 1% of NHS spending [2]. The impacts to individual’s income and welfare and the wider impact on the economy may also be significant.

Many foot-related complications are preventable if identified and treated early. The guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [3] suggests this can be achieved in several ways:



3 Lower-limb amputations in patients with diabetes

A major lower-limb amputation (above the ankle) can be an adverse outcome of diabetes. The rate at which major amputations occur in a population with diabetes can be used as a good overall proxy measure of the effectiveness of health care and the foot care system for patients with diabetes. Survival rates have been found to be poor following a major amputation [4,5]. Unlike a major amputation, a minor amputation can be considered a preventative treatment. For example, the removal of dead tissue with the expectation that healing will follow.

This section provides information on the rate of lower-limb amputations in England for patients with diabetes. Crude rates are presented in Section 3.1. In Sections 3.2 and 3.3, directly standardised rates (DSR) of amputations per 10,000 population with diabetes per year have been produced, controlling for the age and ethnicity of the patients with diabetes. This allows for more robust comparisons of the number of amputations being carried out between areas. Evidence suggests the risk of amputation in South Asian and Black populations is typically lower than in White European populations and that the risk of amputation increases with age [6,7]. For further details on the methodology and technicalities of standardising, please see the accompanying technical document. For further information on how patient management and ulcer severity impact on the rates of amputation please see the National Diabetes Foot Care Audit, available through our partners at NHS Digital.


3.1 Disparities in the rate of amputation

The following descriptive statistics show the England distribution of both major and minor lower-limb amputation procedures that occurred between 2017/18 and 2019/20. Category-specific rates per 10,000 population with diabetes per year have been calculated for deprivation, sex, ethnicity and age separately and are presented in Figures 3.1A and 3.1B. It should be noted that, because each demographic category has been examined separately, the other demographic categories have not been controlled for. The following information may be useful in increasing awareness of which groups in the population with diabetes are most at risk of amputation and informing public health and clinical approaches to reducing variation.

Figures 3.1A and 3.1B show that there is a higher risk of amputation among males, patients of white ethnicity and patients aged over 65. This is true for both major and minor amputations. In addition, patients from the most deprived areas had the highest risk of amputation. The rate of major amputations in the most deprived areas was 1.82 times higher and 1.47 times higher for minor amputations when compared to the least deprived areas.


Figure 3.1A - Crude rate of major lower-limb amputation rates for particular groups compared to England, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Deprivation
Sex
Ethnicity
Age
Data table
Category Sub-category Crude rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
Deprivation Most deprived quintile 10.6 10.2 11.1
2nd most deprived quintile 8.2 7.8 8.6
Middle quintile 7.4 7.0 7.7
2nd least deprived quintile 6.1 5.7 6.4
Least deprived quintile 5.9 5.5 6.3
Age Under 65 6.7 6.5 6.9
65 to 79 9.5 9.2 9.8
80 and over 8.6 8.1 9.1
Sex Male 10.6 10.3 10.8
Female 4.7 4.5 4.9
Ethnicity White 9.5 9.3 9.8
Asian, Black, Mixed and Other 2.7 2.5 2.9


Figure 3.1B - Crude rate of minor lower-limb amputation rates for particular groups compared to England, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Deprivation
Sex
Ethnicity
Age
Data table
Category Sub-category Crude rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
Deprivation Most deprived quintile 25.1 24.5 25.7
2nd most deprived quintile 22.5 21.8 23.1
Middle quintile 21.8 21.2 22.5
2nd least deprived quintile 19.2 18.6 19.8
Least deprived quintile 17.1 16.5 17.8
Age Under 65 20.3 19.9 20.7
65 to 79 23.2 22.7 23.7
80 and over 23.5 22.7 24.3
Sex Male 30.8 30.3 31.2
Female 10.4 10.1 10.7
Ethnicity White 26.0 25.6 26.3
Asian, Black, Mixed and Other 7.7 7.4 8.1



3.2 Major lower-limb amputations in patients with diabetes

There were 7,957 major lower-limb amputation procedures for patients with diabetes in England between 2017/18 and 2019/20. This equates to a directly standardised rate (DSR) of 8.1. In the same period, there was a total of 15,663 major lower-limb amputations carried out on all patients aged 18 and over in England. Major lower-limb amputations for patients with diabetes therefore made up 51% of all major lower-limb amputations that occurred during this period.

In Figure 3.2A, the trend of DSRs for major amputations in England from 2012/13-2014/15 to 2017/18 - 2019/20 is shown. Nationally, there was an increase in the number of major amputations carried out in 2017/18 - 2019/20 compared to previous periods. However, when accounting for the increasing at-risk population with diabetes, there has been no change in the rate of major amputations in England between 2012/13 - 2014/15 and the latest period.

The DSRs of major amputations for England and NHS regions are displayed in Figure 3.2B. This shows that only the North West had amputation rates significantly higher than England. London and East of England had rates significantly lower than England. Figure 3.2C shows the geographical variation in the DSRs of major amputations across Clinical Commissioning Groups and whether each is statistically significantly different to the DSR for England. These range from 3.5 to 16.8 (a 4.8-fold difference). Of the 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups in England, there were 13 with a DSR statistically significantly higher than the DSR for England and 20 statistically significantly lower.

The geographical distribution of the Clinical Commissioning Groups with the highest and lowest rates are displayed in Figure 3.2D.


Figure 3.2A - Directly standardised rates of major lower-limb amputation rates for England, 2012/13 - 2014/15 to 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
Analysis period Count of major amputation procedures Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
2012/13 - 2014/15 6,957 8.25 8.06 8.45
2013/14 - 2015/16 7,119 8.13 7.94 8.32
2014/15 - 2016/17 7,305 8.17 7.98 8.36
2015/16 - 2017/18 7,545 8.19 8.01 8.38
2016/17 - 2018/19 7,809 8.23 8.05 8.42
2017/18 - 2019/20 7,957 8.14 7.96 8.32


Figure 3.2B - Directly standardised rates of major lower-limb amputations for England and regions, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
Area Count of major amputation procedures Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
England 7,957 8.1 8.0 8.3
North West 1,210 8.8 8.4 9.4
North East and Yorkshire 1,500 8.8 8.3 9.2
South West 860 8.1 7.5 8.7
Midlands 1,640 8.1 7.7 8.5
South East 1,150 7.8 7.3 8.2
East of England 835 7.2 6.7 7.7
London 765 6.7 6.1 7.2


Figure 3.2C - Directly standardised rates of major lower-limb amputations for Clinical Commissioning Groups compared to England, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
CCG Count of major amputations Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval England comparison
NHS Blackpool CCG 70 16.8 13.1 21.2 Significantly higher
NHS Tower Hamlets CCG 35 16.2 10.2 23.9 Significantly higher
NHS Redbridge CCG 50 14.8 10.2 20.4 Significantly higher
NHS Cannock Chase CCG 35 13.8 6.9 22.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Southport and Formby CCG 20 13.1 5.0 24.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Liverpool CCG 120 13.0 10.8 15.6 Significantly higher
NHS Telford and Wrekin CCG 45 13.0 9.2 17.8 Significantly higher
NHS County Durham CCG 125 12.3 7.7 17.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Southend CCG 40 12.2 8.6 16.8 Significantly higher
NHS Northumberland CCG 100 12.2 9.9 14.8 Significantly higher
NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG 30 12.1 7.9 17.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Stoke On Trent CCG 75 11.9 9.4 14.9 Significantly higher
NHS Portsmouth CCG 45 11.9 8.5 16.1 Significantly higher
NHS Newcastle Gateshead CCG 100 11.8 9.5 14.5 Significantly higher
NHS Brighton and Hove CCG 40 11.4 8.0 15.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Cumbria CCG 90 11.2 9.0 13.8 Significantly higher
NHS Luton CCG 35 11.0 7.2 16.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Shropshire CCG 55 11.0 6.1 17.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Fylde and Wyre CCG 45 10.8 7.8 14.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Kernow CCG 120 10.7 8.8 12.9 Significantly higher
NHS Castle Point and Rochford CCG 45 10.7 7.8 14.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bolton CCG 60 10.7 8.2 13.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Staffordshire CCG 30 10.3 6.9 14.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Newham CCG 35 10.1 5.6 15.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCG 185 10.1 8.6 11.6 Significantly higher
NHS Hull CCG 65 10.0 7.7 12.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peninsula CCG 40 9.9 6.4 14.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Havering CCG 45 9.7 7.1 12.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Dudley CCG 65 9.7 7.4 12.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG 75 9.6 7.5 12.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Hampshire CCG 35 9.6 6.7 13.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Manchester CCG 75 9.6 7.4 12.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Southampton CCG 40 9.6 6.8 13.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Wolverhampton CCG 50 9.6 7.0 12.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Stafford and Surrounds CCG 30 9.5 6.4 13.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bury CCG 35 9.5 6.6 13.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG 65 9.5 7.1 12.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Wirral CCG 60 9.4 6.5 13.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Oldham CCG 40 9.4 6.7 12.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Wigan Borough CCG 70 9.3 7.2 11.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Doncaster CCG 65 9.3 6.9 12.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Heywood Middleton and Rochdale CCG 40 9.2 6.5 12.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Rotherham CCG 45 9.1 6.6 12.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Chorley and South Ribble CCG 30 9.1 4.9 14.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Salford CCG 40 9.1 6.3 12.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Gloucestershire CCG 105 9.1 7.2 11.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bassetlaw CCG 25 9.1 5.9 13.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Tees Valley CCG 125 9.0 7.4 10.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Hammersmith and Fulham CCG 20 8.9 4.8 14.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS North East Lincolnshire CCG 30 8.9 5.9 12.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS North East Hampshire and Farnham CCG 30 8.8 6.0 12.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sunderland CCG 55 8.8 6.6 11.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Walsall CCG 50 8.8 6.5 11.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Kent and Medway CCG 300 8.8 7.8 9.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Tyneside CCG 45 8.7 6.3 11.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS St Helens CCG 40 8.7 6.2 11.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bradford District 85 8.6 6.8 10.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Lancashire CCG 60 8.6 6.6 11.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS South Sefton CCG 30 8.6 5.7 12.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Blackburn With Darwen CCG 25 8.6 5.5 12.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Lincolnshire CCG 145 8.5 6.9 10.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sheffield CCG 85 8.5 6.8 10.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Waltham Forest CCG 35 8.5 5.1 12.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Hampshire CCG 75 8.5 6.4 10.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group 215 8.5 7.4 9.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Hounslow CCG 25 8.4 5.1 12.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Staffordshire CCG 45 8.4 6.0 11.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Morecambe Bay CCG 60 8.3 6.3 10.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bristol North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG 130 8.2 6.9 9.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Greater Huddersfield CCG 30 8.2 5.6 11.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Oxfordshire CCG 75 8.1 6.4 10.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Lincolnshire CCG 30 8.0 5.3 11.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Leeds CCG 110 8.0 6.5 9.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Leicester City CCG 40 8.0 5.4 11.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Cheshire CCG 100 7.9 5.8 10.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Warwickshire North CCG 30 7.9 5.4 11.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Fareham and Gosport CCG 35 7.9 5.5 10.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Calderdale CCG 30 7.8 5.2 11.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Herts Valleys CCG 70 7.8 6.0 9.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Birmingham and Solihull CCG 165 7.7 6.5 9.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group 160 7.7 6.5 9.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Milton Keynes CCG 30 7.6 5.0 11.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Sussex 75 7.6 5.8 9.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS South Tyneside CCG 25 7.5 4.9 11.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bath and North East Somerset Swindon and Wiltshire CCG 120 7.4 6.1 8.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Dorset CCG 110 7.3 5.9 8.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Surrey Heartlands CCG 110 7.3 6.0 8.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Suffolk CCG 40 7.3 5.2 9.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Greater Preston CCG 25 7.2 4.6 10.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Coventry and Rugby CCG 50 7.2 5.4 9.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS North East Essex CCG 50 7.2 5.2 9.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Leicestershire CCG 50 7.1 5.2 9.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS South Eastern Hampshire CCG 35 6.9 4.8 9.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS West London CCG 20 6.9 3.6 11.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS City and Hackney CCG 30 6.9 3.2 11.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Halton CCG 25 6.9 4.4 10.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Barnsley CCG 40 6.9 4.9 9.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG 155 6.9 5.8 8.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Tameside and Glossop CCG 35 6.8 4.7 9.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Riding of Yorkshire CCG 50 6.8 5.1 9.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bedfordshire CCG 50 6.6 4.9 8.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Mid Essex CCG 45 6.6 4.8 8.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Berkshire CCG 35 6.6 4.6 9.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Wakefield CCG 45 6.3 4.4 8.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG 95 6.3 5.1 7.8 Significantly lower
NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire CCG 100 6.3 4.9 8.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Warrington CCG 25 6.3 4.1 9.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Sussex CCG 105 6.3 5.1 7.6 Significantly lower
NHS Thurrock CCG 15 6.2 3.5 9.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Brent CCG 25 6.1 3.1 10.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Basildon and Brentwood CCG 25 5.9 3.8 8.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS South West London CCG 110 5.9 4.7 7.2 Significantly lower
NHS Hillingdon CCG 25 5.9 3.6 9.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Northamptonshire CCG 70 5.8 4.5 7.4 Significantly lower
NHS East and North Hertfordshire CCG 55 5.8 4.3 7.6 Significantly lower
NHS Somerset CCG 55 5.8 3.3 8.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Yorkshire CCG 50 5.8 4.3 7.6 Significantly lower
NHS Berkshire West CCG 40 5.8 4.1 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS Trafford CCG 20 5.7 3.5 8.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Vale of York CCG 35 5.7 4.0 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG 35 5.7 3.9 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS West Lancashire CCG 15 5.7 3.1 9.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Stockport CCG 30 5.4 3.6 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS North Central London CCG 110 5.3 4.2 6.6 Significantly lower
NHS Buckinghamshire CCG 45 5.3 3.8 7.2 Significantly lower
NHS South East London 130 5.2 4.3 6.3 Significantly lower
NHS North Kirklees CCG 15 4.9 2.8 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS Isle of Wight CCG 15 4.8 2.7 7.8 Significantly lower
NHS Ealing CCG 20 4.7 2.5 8.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Essex CCG 25 4.7 3.0 7.0 Significantly lower
NHS Knowsley CCG 15 4.3 2.4 7.1 Significantly lower
NHS Central London (Westminster) CCG 10 3.8 1.3 7.9 Significantly lower
NHS South Warwickshire CCG 15 3.7 2.1 5.8 Significantly lower
NHS Harrow CCG 10 3.5 1.3 6.9 Significantly lower
NHS Surrey Heath CCG 10 NA NA NA Count too small


Figure 3.2D - Directly standardised rates of major lower-limb amputations for Clinical Commissioning Groups in England, 2017/18 - 2019/20



3.3 Minor lower-limb amputations in patients with diabetes

There were 21,738 minor lower-limb amputation procedures for patients with diabetes in England between 2017/18 and 2019/20. This equates to a directly standardised rate (DSR) of 22.1. In the same period, there were a total of 31,581 minor lower-limb amputations carried out on those aged 18 and over in England. Minor lower-limb amputations for patients with diabetes therefore make up 69% of all minor lower-limb amputations that occurred during this period.

In Figure 3.3A, the trend of DSRs of minor amputations in England from 2012/13 - 2014/15 to 2017/18 - 2019/20 is shown. Nationally, there has been an increase in the number of minor amputations carried out in the current analysis period compared to previous periods. When accounting for the increasing at-risk population with diabetes, this increase in minor amputations in England between 2012/13 - 2014/15 and the latest period is statistically significant.

The DSRs of major amputations for England and NHS regions are displayed in Figure 3.3B. This shows that the regions with amputation rates significantly higher than England are South East and South West. East of England, North East and Yorkshire and North West had rates significantly lower than England. Figure 3.3C shows there is substantial geographical variation in the DSRs of minor amputations across Clinical Commissioning Groups and whether each is statistically significantly different to the DSR for England. These range from 7.7 to 44.6 (a 5.8-fold difference). Of the 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups in England, there were 28 with a DSR statistically significantly higher than the DSR for England and 38 statistically significantly lower.

The geographical distribution of the areas with the highest and lowest rates are displayed in Figure 3.3D.


Figure 3.3A - Directly standardised rates of minor lower-limb amputation rates for England, 2012/13-2014/15 to 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
Analysis period Count of minor amputation procedures Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
2012/13 - 2014/15 17,224 20.43 20.13 20.74
2013/14 - 2015/16 18,408 21.01 20.71 21.32
2014/15 - 2016/17 19,073 21.17 20.87 21.47
2015/16 - 2017/18 19,920 21.49 21.20 21.80
2016/17 - 2018/19 20,973 22.01 21.71 22.31
2017/18 - 2019/20 21,738 22.14 21.85 22.44


Figure 3.3B - Directly standardised rates of minor lower-limb amputations for England and regions, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
Area Count of minor amputation procedures Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
England 21,738 22.1 21.8 22.4
South West 2,785 26.7 25.7 27.8
South East 3,655 24.5 23.7 25.3
London 2,520 22.2 21.2 23.2
Midlands 4,320 21.2 20.6 21.9
North East and Yorkshire 3,635 21.0 20.3 21.7
North West 2,820 20.5 19.7 21.3
East of England 2,000 17.2 16.5 18.0


Figure 3.3C - Directly standardised rate of minor lower-limb amputations for Clinical Commissioning Groups compared to England, 2017/18 - 2019/20

Chart
Data table
CCG Count of minor amputations Directly standardised rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval England comparison
NHS Somerset CCG 420 44.6 37.9 51.9 Significantly higher
NHS Southampton CCG 175 42.5 36.3 49.3 Significantly higher
NHS Bassetlaw CCG 70 40.7 26.3 57.9 Significantly higher
NHS Barking and Dagenham CCG 100 38.8 31.1 47.6 Significantly higher
NHS Southend CCG 120 38.0 31.4 45.5 Significantly higher
NHS Isle of Wight CCG 95 37.1 26.0 50.0 Significantly higher
NHS City and Hackney CCG 95 36.8 27.8 47.4 Significantly higher
NHS Telford and Wrekin CCG 135 35.3 29.4 42.0 Significantly higher
NHS Calderdale CCG 130 33.8 28.2 40.2 Significantly higher
NHS South Eastern Hampshire CCG 150 33.5 26.9 40.9 Significantly higher
NHS North East Hampshire and Farnham CCG 115 33.2 27.4 39.8 Significantly higher
NHS Kernow CCG 350 32.3 28.3 36.6 Significantly higher
NHS Bristol North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG 490 32.1 29.2 35.1 Significantly higher
NHS Shropshire CCG 210 31.4 27.3 35.9 Significantly higher
NHS Newham CCG 95 31.1 22.9 40.7 Significantly higher
NHS Blackpool CCG 125 29.8 23.7 36.8 Significantly higher
NHS South Warwickshire CCG 135 29.6 24.8 35.1 Significantly higher
NHS Tower Hamlets CCG 65 29.5 21.5 39.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Liverpool CCG 270 29.4 25.8 33.2 Significantly higher
NHS Bolton CCG 165 29.0 24.7 33.9 Significantly higher
NHS Wolverhampton CCG 145 29.0 24.3 34.4 Significantly higher
NHS Portsmouth CCG 115 28.9 23.7 34.8 Significantly higher
NHS Havering CCG 135 28.3 23.7 33.5 Significantly higher
NHS North Lincolnshire CCG 105 28.1 22.8 34.1 Significantly higher
NHS Stoke On Trent CCG 180 27.6 23.7 32.0 Significantly higher
NHS Brighton and Hove CCG 100 27.6 22.3 33.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG 240 27.1 23.4 31.1 Significantly higher
NHS Stafford and Surrounds CCG 80 27.0 21.5 33.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Fareham and Gosport CCG 120 26.9 22.4 32.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Staffordshire CCG 125 26.5 20.8 33.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Cannock Chase CCG 75 26.5 17.6 37.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Kent and Medway CCG 900 26.2 24.5 28.1 Significantly higher
NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group 660 26.2 24.2 28.4 Significantly higher
NHS Redbridge CCG 100 26.0 19.9 33.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Hampshire CCG 245 26.0 22.5 29.7 Significantly higher
NHS North Cumbria CCG 190 25.8 20.7 31.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Hull CCG 160 25.6 21.5 30.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Wirral CCG 175 25.5 21.4 30.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Manchester CCG 195 25.3 21.7 29.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Doncaster CCG 190 25.2 21.7 29.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Vale of York CCG 155 25.2 21.4 29.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS Hounslow CCG 90 24.9 19.2 31.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Blackburn With Darwen CCG 70 24.7 19.2 31.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Surrey Heartlands CCG 380 24.6 22.2 27.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS South Sefton CCG 80 24.4 19.4 30.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS South East London 600 24.3 22.2 26.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Yorkshire CCG 200 24.3 20.7 28.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Coventry and Rugby CCG 185 24.2 20.8 28.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Mid Essex CCG 170 23.8 20.2 27.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Hampshire CCG 85 23.5 18.5 29.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Dudley CCG 155 23.3 19.8 27.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Lancashire CCG 160 23.2 19.8 27.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Herts Valleys CCG 205 22.9 19.9 26.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Riding of Yorkshire CCG 165 22.8 19.5 26.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Buckinghamshire CCG 180 22.7 19.5 26.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Walsall CCG 130 22.5 18.8 26.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Gloucestershire CCG 270 22.4 19.7 25.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sheffield CCG 220 22.4 19.5 25.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Berkshire CCG 135 22.3 18.5 26.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Leeds CCG 305 22.2 19.8 24.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Oldham CCG 95 22.2 17.9 27.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS North Tyneside CCG 95 22.1 16.8 28.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG 145 22.1 18.3 26.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Leicester City CCG 125 22.0 17.7 27.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Barnsley CCG 135 22.0 18.4 26.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Hammersmith and Fulham CCG 45 22.0 15.2 30.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Luton CCG 65 22.0 16.3 28.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Newcastle Gateshead CCG 205 21.9 18.9 25.3 Not statisitcally different
NHS Greater Preston CCG 70 21.7 16.9 27.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS South West London CCG 390 21.6 19.4 24.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Greater Huddersfield CCG 80 21.4 17.0 26.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG 120 20.8 17.2 24.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Oxfordshire CCG 200 20.7 17.9 23.8 Not statisitcally different
NHS Rotherham CCG 105 20.6 16.7 25.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Halton CCG 70 20.6 16.0 26.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bath and North East Somerset Swindon and Wiltshire CCG 345 20.5 18.3 22.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire CCG 335 20.2 17.9 22.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCG 375 19.9 17.9 22.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Birmingham and Solihull CCG 440 19.9 18.0 21.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Northumberland CCG 160 19.7 16.7 23.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS Fylde and Wyre CCG 80 19.6 15.6 24.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS North East Lincolnshire CCG 65 19.5 15.0 24.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS Berkshire West CCG 135 19.5 16.3 23.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Castle Point and Rochford CCG 75 19.4 15.3 24.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS East Staffordshire CCG 55 19.4 14.4 25.5 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Sussex CCG 330 19.3 17.3 21.5 Significantly lower
NHS North Central London CCG 375 19.2 17.1 21.5 Significantly lower
NHS Bury CCG 75 19.2 14.9 24.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS East and North Hertfordshire CCG 175 19.1 16.3 22.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Sunderland CCG 110 19.1 15.1 23.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Heywood Middleton and Rochdale CCG 85 18.9 15.1 23.4 Not statisitcally different
NHS Harrow CCG 60 18.8 13.2 25.6 Not statisitcally different
NHS Warwickshire North CCG 75 18.3 14.4 22.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS County Durham CCG 190 18.3 13.1 24.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS Cheshire CCG 255 18.1 15.4 21.1 Significantly lower
NHS St Helens CCG 85 18.0 14.4 22.2 Not statisitcally different
NHS Bradford District 170 18.0 15.3 21.0 Significantly lower
NHS Morecambe Bay CCG 130 17.8 14.8 21.1 Significantly lower
NHS Salford CCG 85 17.7 14.1 22.0 Not statisitcally different
NHS South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peninsula CCG 85 17.6 14.0 21.8 Significantly lower
NHS Chorley and South Ribble CCG 55 17.5 11.5 24.9 Not statisitcally different
NHS West London CCG 50 17.4 12.0 24.1 Not statisitcally different
NHS West Suffolk CCG 95 17.4 14.0 21.2 Significantly lower
NHS Southport and Formby CCG 50 17.1 12.6 22.7 Not statisitcally different
NHS Northamptonshire CCG 225 16.9 14.7 19.3 Significantly lower
NHS North East Essex CCG 115 16.8 13.7 20.4 Significantly lower
NHS East Sussex 175 16.4 13.9 19.1 Significantly lower
NHS Lincolnshire CCG 285 16.2 14.1 18.5 Significantly lower
NHS South Tyneside CCG 60 16.1 12.3 20.8 Significantly lower
NHS Brent CCG 80 15.8 10.7 21.8 Significantly lower
NHS Tees Valley CCG 225 15.8 13.7 18.1 Significantly lower
NHS West Essex CCG 80 15.7 12.4 19.5 Significantly lower
NHS Waltham Forest CCG 70 15.7 11.3 20.9 Significantly lower
NHS West Leicestershire CCG 110 15.6 12.8 18.9 Significantly lower
NHS Dorset CCG 250 15.5 13.6 17.5 Significantly lower
NHS Hillingdon CCG 65 15.4 11.6 20.0 Significantly lower
NHS North Kirklees CCG 50 15.3 11.3 20.2 Significantly lower
NHS Stockport CCG 80 15.1 12.0 18.9 Significantly lower
NHS Tameside and Glossop CCG 75 15.1 11.8 19.0 Significantly lower
NHS Knowsley CCG 60 15.0 11.4 19.4 Significantly lower
NHS Bedfordshire CCG 120 14.9 12.4 17.9 Significantly lower
NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG 340 14.8 13.2 16.6 Significantly lower
NHS Milton Keynes CCG 60 14.8 11.2 19.2 Significantly lower
NHS Warrington CCG 65 14.7 11.3 18.7 Significantly lower
NHS Central London (Westminster) CCG 30 14.3 8.8 21.5 Significantly lower
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group 290 13.9 12.3 15.6 Significantly lower
NHS Wigan Borough CCG 95 13.7 10.9 17.1 Significantly lower
NHS Surrey Heath CCG 20 13.6 8.3 21.0 Significantly lower
NHS West Lancashire CCG 30 12.1 8.2 17.3 Significantly lower
NHS Ealing CCG 75 12.0 8.3 16.3 Significantly lower
NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG 185 11.6 9.9 13.4 Significantly lower
NHS Wakefield CCG 90 10.9 8.6 13.5 Significantly lower
NHS Trafford CCG 35 9.0 6.2 12.6 Significantly lower
NHS Thurrock CCG 25 8.4 5.4 12.4 Significantly lower
NHS Basildon and Brentwood CCG 35 7.7 5.3 10.8 Significantly lower


Figure 3.3D - Directly standardised rate of minor lower-limb amputations for Clinical Commissioning Groups in England, 2017/18 - 2019/20



5 The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on foot care

During the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK access to healthcare was substantially impacted. Reductions to both emergency and elective admissions were identified during the Spring of 2020. In both the Spring and Winter of 2020, high COVID-19 infection rates led to the redistribution of resources within the NHS, including to support the vaccination campaign in December 2020 and into 2021.

Figure 5A1 displays the monthly crude rate of foot disease-related admissions between 2017/18 and 2020/21 per 10,000 population registered with diabetes in that year. This indicates that there was a substantial drop in admissions from March 2020, with the lowest admission rate occurring in April 2020 - a 48% decrease compared to 2019. There was a month-on-month increase up until August 2020, after which admissions drop off again towards the end of the year and into 2021. There is an indication that admissions began to return to normal levels by March 2021.

A recent study commissioned by NHS England demonstrated that, during the first wave in March to June 2020, rates of major and minor amputations were significantly lower than the equivalent period from 2017 to 2019 [8]. This was true after controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and geographical region.

It is currently unclear whether the reductions in admissions identified here reflected an actual reduction in complications in the population or patients’ treatment having been delayed, patients themselves actively reduced accessing care or an artifact of data recording issues during periods of high demand on the NHS.

The next update of this report will assess further how rates of hospital admissions and amputations were affected during the pandemic, once all the necessary data for 2020/21 is available.


Figure 5A - Crude rate of hospital admissions for foot disease per month in England, 2017/18 to 2020/21

Chart
Data table
Year Month Admission count Crude rate Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval
2017/18 April 4,052 12.7 12.3 13.1
May 4,479 14.0 13.6 14.4
June 4,658 14.6 14.2 15.0
July 4,440 13.9 13.5 14.3
August 4,602 14.4 14.0 14.8
September 4,348 13.6 13.2 14.0
October 4,466 14.0 13.6 14.4
November 4,403 13.8 13.4 14.2
December 4,401 13.8 13.4 14.2
January 4,528 14.2 13.8 14.6
February 4,087 12.8 12.4 13.2
March 4,913 15.4 14.9 15.8
2018/19 April 4,460 13.4 13.0 13.8
May 5,032 15.2 14.7 15.6
June 5,058 15.2 14.8 15.7
July 5,324 16.0 15.6 16.5
August 5,033 15.2 14.7 15.6
September 4,578 13.8 13.4 14.2
October 4,821 14.5 14.1 14.9
November 4,709 14.2 13.8 14.6
December 4,484 13.5 13.1 13.9
January 4,778 14.4 14.0 14.8
February 4,334 13.1 12.7 13.5
March 5,046 15.2 14.8 15.6
2019/20 April 5,054 14.6 14.2 15.0
May 5,278 15.3 14.9 15.7
June 5,122 14.8 14.4 15.2
July 5,732 16.6 16.2 17.0
August 5,420 15.7 15.3 16.1
September 5,180 15.0 14.6 15.4
October 5,147 14.9 14.5 15.3
November 4,919 14.2 13.8 14.6
December 4,783 13.8 13.5 14.2
January 5,013 14.5 14.1 14.9
February 4,427 12.8 12.4 13.2
March 3,784 11.0 10.6 11.3
2020/21 April 2,653 7.6 7.3 7.9
May 3,604 10.3 10.0 10.7
June 4,108 11.8 11.4 12.1
July 4,372 12.5 12.2 12.9
August 4,501 12.9 12.5 13.3
September 4,476 12.8 12.4 13.2
October 4,231 12.1 11.8 12.5
November 4,024 11.5 11.2 11.9
December 3,945 11.3 10.9 11.7
January 3,671 10.5 10.2 10.9
February 3,848 11.0 10.7 11.4
March 4,841 13.9 13.5 14.3

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, Quality Outcomes Framework.

Footnotes

6 Resources for foot care

Below are helpful resources for understanding diabetic foot care both nationally and at a local level, including preventing complications:


References

  1. NHS Digital. Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2020-21. https://digital.nhs.uk/pubs/qof2021.
  2. Kerr M, Barron E, Chadwick P, Evans T, Kong WM, Rayman G, Sutton-Smith M, Todd G, Young B, Jeffcoate WJ. The cost of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations to the National Health Service in England. Diabet Med. 2019; 36(8): 995-1002; https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13973.
  3. NICE guideline [NG19]. Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management; http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19.
  4. Icks A, Scheer M, Morbach S, Genz J, Haastert B, Giani G et al. Time-dependent impact of diabetes on mortality in patients after major lower extremity amputation: survival in a population-based 5-year cohort in Germany. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34: 1350–1354; https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-2341.
  5. Ikonen TS, Sund R, Venermo M, Winell K. Fewer major amputations among individuals with diabetes in Finland in 1997–2007: a population-based study. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 2598–2603; https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-0462.
  6. Leggetter S, Chaturvedi N, Fuller JH, Edmonds ME. Ethnicity and risk of diabetes-related lower extremity amputation: a population-based, case-control study of African Caribbeans and Europeans in the United Kingdom. Archives of internal medicine. 2002; 162(1): 73-78; https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.1.73.
  7. Chaturvedi N, Abbott CA, Whalley A, Widdows P, Leggetter SY, Boulton AJ. Risk of diabetes‐related amputation in South Asians vs. Europeans in the UK. Diabetic Medicine. 2002; 19(2): 99-104; https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00583.x.
  8. Valabhji J, Barron E, Vamos EP, Dhatariya K, Game F, Kar P, Weaver A, Verma S, Young B, Khunti K. Temporal trends in lower-limb major and minor amputation and revascularization procedures in people with diabetes in England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes Care. 2021; 44: e133–e135; https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2852.


Data Sources

Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Copyright © 2010/11 - 2020/21, Re-used with the permission of NHS Digital. All rights reserved; National Diabetes Audit (NDA) 2015/16 - 2019/20, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, All rights reserved; Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) 2010/11 - 2020/21, NHS Digital.

© Crown copyright 2022 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit OGL or email . Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.


  1. Due to the method of assigning spells to months, the sum of the counts for the months of 2017/18 - 2019/20 may not equal the counts reported for the indicators above.↩︎