AimsTo investigate the relationship between high diabetes‐related lower limb amputation incidence and foot care services in the South‐West region of England.MethodsThe introduction of 10 key elements of foot care service provision in one area of the South‐West resulted in stabilization of foot ulcer incidence and sustained reduction in amputation incidence from 2007. Services introduced included administrative support, standardized general practice foot screening, improved community podiatry staffing, hospital multidisciplinary foot clinics, effective care pathways, availability of an orthotist and audit. Peer reviews of the region's diabetes foot care services were undertaken to assess delivery of these service provisions and compare this with major amputation incidence in other regions with data provided by Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory Hospital Episode Statistics. Recommendations were made to improve service provision. In 2015 changes in service provision and amputation incidence were reviewed.ResultsInitial reviews in 2013 showed that the 3‐year diabetes‐related major amputation incidence correlated inversely with adequate delivery of diabetes foot care services (P=0.0024, adjusted R 2 =0.51). Repeat reviews in 2015 found that two or more foot care service improvements were reported by six diabetes foot care providers, with improvement in outcomes. The negative relationship between major amputation incidence and service provision remained strong both in the period 2012–2015 and in the year 2015 only (P ≤0.0012, adjusted R 2 =0.56, and P= 0.0005, R 2=0.62, respectively).ConclusionsMajor diabetes‐related lower limb amputation incidence is significantly inversely correlated with foot care services provision. Introduction of more effective service provision resulted in significant reductions in major amputation incidence within 2 years. Failure to improve unsatisfactory service provision resulted in continued high amputation incidence.

First, the morphological similarity of spitzoid tumours reflects an underlying molecular similarity, namely a relative lack of dependence on BRAF/NRAS mutations. Second, Spitz naevi do not appear to progress into spitzoid melanoma, and consequently ambiguous spitzoid tumours are likely to be unclassifiable Spitz naevi or spitzoid melanoma rather than genuine entities. Third, HRAS mutation may be a marker of Spitz naevus, raising the possibility that other molecular markers for discriminating Spitz naevi from spitzoid melanoma can be discovered.

In all, 67% were nodular BCC and 45.4% located in the lower eyelid. The main outcome measure was the recurrence rate. None of the patients with primary nodular BCC suffered recurrence. The recurrence rate for primary morphoeaform BCC following complete excision is 3.8%. In total, 8.1% of patients had several lesions simultaneously whereas 7.8% patients had BCC in multiple locations subsequently (metachronous). Three patients who had previously recurrent BCC (rBCC) treated elsewhere or not using this method had orbital/lacrimal drainage system involvement requiring exenteration. Conclusion We recommend that patients with a single, completely excised primary solid or nodular BCC can be discharged after one 6-monthly review, although they should be instructed to monitor for the development of further lesions. The incidence of recurrence for primary morphoeaform BCC is 3.8% and for rBCC is 3.6% over 5 years and these patients should stay under review for this period.