The optimal organisation of diabetes care has become a ‘hot topic’ in several countries. Traditionally, these services have been provided either by a general practitioner (GP) or at hospital clinics. In recent years however, much attention has been directed towards the transfer of diabetes care provided by hospital clinics to primary care settings. The study by Houweling et al. (2011) adds valuable information in this regard, namely that the outcome measures (e.g. glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure and lipid profile) are comparable, regardless of whether patients are under practice nurse (PN) or GP follow-up. Mundinger et al. (2000) studied 1316 patients with various chronic diseases, including diabetes, and found that health status did not differ significantly between patients followed by nurse practitioners or GPs. Indeed, the work by Houweling et al. (2011) adds further confirmation to the findings of Mundinger et al. (2000). An important aspect, and perhaps the most crucial one, is whether or not the PNs are provided with the same authority as GPs. In the future, this is undoubtedly the most challenging task. Houweling et al. (2011) conclude that the ability of the PNs to prescribe medications is essential and consequently of great importance for the PNs to provide a comparable diabetes care service to that of GPs. Moreover, this is supported by the conclusions made by Mundinger et al. (2000), underlining that the same responsibilities, authority, productivity and administrative requirements are necessary in order for the PNs and GPs to achieve similar outcome results. Houweling et al. (2011) report that the physical component score of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) was significantly reduced from T0–T2 – whilst there were no significant differences from T0–T2 among patients followed by GPs. The authors state that this finding was unexpected and not previously described in the literature. It is peculiar that the authors do not discuss this finding in relation to the fact that the PN group contained more patients with feet at risk. As reported by both Ribu et al. (2007) and Jelsness-Jørgensen et al. (2011), the presence of diabetic foot ulcers is a major predictor of impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Having more patients with feet at risk in the PN group may consequently have influenced the results, and it is, perhaps, the most likely cause of differences in HRQOL between PNs and GPs. Thus, these results may not be associated with the follow-up per se, but rather to clinical variables not accounted for. In this regard, the authors should have controlled for differences in feet at risk between the groups by entering feet at risk as a covariate in analysis of covariance (ancova). In conclusion, Houweling et al.’s (2011) study is novel and adds valuable information to the field of diabetes care. Future prospective research should focus on the long-term consequences of diabetes care provided by either PNs or GPs, e.g. risk of cardiovascular complications. None.