Establishing a Regional Glaucoma Physician Collaborative to Improve Quality of Care

Clinical outcome measures in vision and eye care

Traditionally, clinical outcome assessments have focused on the patient's perspective through patient-reported outcome assessments; however, given the complexity, integration, and interactions of various participants within the clinical ophthalmology setting, we propose that additional diverse clinical perspectives should be explored in order to appreciate fully the value of care provided to patients. In this review we introduce a framework by which clinical outcome assessments (COAs) can be organized. Our COA framework is composed of five outcome measurements that encompass the perspectives of each player in a patient's care: clinical data-reported outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, and reviewer-reported outcomes. By establishing a standard for evaluating patient care, we hope to address gaps in expectations of patient care and encourage more thoughtful patient-clinician relationships.

Using Electronic Clinical Decision Support to Examine Vision Rehabilitation Referrals and Practice Guidelines in Ophthalmology

Purpose

To examine ophthalmologist use of an electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate low vision rehabilitation (LVR) care referral.

Methods

The CDSS alert was designed to appear when best documented visual acuity was <20/40 or hemianopia or quadrantanopia diagnosis was identified during an ophthalmology encounter from November 6, 2017, to April 5, 2019. Fifteen ophthalmologists representing eight subspecialties from an academic medical center were required to respond to the referral recommendation (order, don't order). LVR referral rates and ophthalmologist user experience were assessed. Encounter characteristics associated with LVR referrals were explored using multilevel logistic regression analysis.

Results

The alert appeared for 3625 (8.9%) of 40,931 eligible encounters. The referral rate was 14.8% (535/3625). Of the 3413 encounters that met the visual acuity criterion only, patients who were worse than 20/60 were more likely to be referred, and 32.4% of referred patients were between 20/40 and 20/60. Primary reasons for deferring referrals included active medical or surgical treatment, refractive-related issues, and previous connection to LVR services. Eleven of the 13 ophthalmologists agreed that the alert was useful in identifying candidates for LVR services.

Conclusions

A CDSS for patient identification and referral offers an acceptable mechanism to apply practice guidelines and prompt ophthalmologists to facilitate LVR care. Further study is warranted to optimize ophthalmologist user experience while refining alert criteria beyond visual acuity.

Translational Relevance

The CDSS provides the framework for multi-center research to assess the development of pragmatic algorithms and standards for facilitating LVR care.

Level of appropriate primary diabetic eyecare delivered and achievable in optometry practices in Australia

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Current levels of appropriateness for primary diabetic eyecare delivered by Australian optometrists are presented along with realistic targets (benchmarks) for quality improvement. The demonstrated methods can be used in practice evaluation and benchmarking of other clinical practice areas and settings.

BACKGROUND

To examine the appropriateness of diabetic eye-care delivery and establish achievable benchmarks of care (ABCs) for optometry practices in Australia.

METHOD

In a retrospective audit, clinical records of patients with type-II diabetes obtained from a randomly selected nationally representative sample of optometry practices were assessed against evidence-based clinical indicators. Appropriate care is defined as care delivered in compliance with the indicators. The ABC for each indicator was calculated as the average performance for the top 10% of optometry practices after Bayesian adjustment to account for a low number of eligible records.

RESULTS

The audit of 420 randomly selected patient records from 42 practices against 12 clinical indicators showed an overall appropriateness of 69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66%, 73%) for overall diabetic eye care. While a high level of appropriateness was identified for recall period (93%, 95% CI 85%, 100%) and referral (100%, 95% CI 38%, 100%), larger gaps existed in history taking (46%, 95% CI 44%, 52%), dilated fundus examination (80%, 95% CI 76%, 84%) and iris examination (0%, 95% CI 0%, 56%). The ABCs for 8 of 12 indicators were 100%, and the remaining three indicators had ABCs above 80%. An ABC for the iris examination indicator could not be calculated owing to the low number of eligible patient record cards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a systematic process of practice evaluation and benchmarking in optometry practices. The diabetic eye care delivered by Australian optometrists was largely appropriate; however, improvement opportunities exist for history taking and physical examination. The ABCs demonstrate that excellence in primary diabetic eye care is attainable and will serve as an important tool in future initiatives to reduce the identified evidence-to-practice gaps.

Compliance With Primary Open-angle Glaucoma and Primary Open-angle Glaucoma Suspect Preferred Practice Patterns in a Retail-based Eye Clinic

PURPOSE

To determine the level of adherence to the American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice pattern (PPP) guidelines for quality primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and POAG suspect (POAGS) care among retail-based optometrists.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of POAG or POAGS who participated in a telemedicine pilot project were included. Patients' charts were evaluated for 15 elements of PPP guidelines for glaucoma care. Results were further stratified by number of follow-up visits and diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 360 identified patients, 10 elements were documented in over 98%. Documentation of the remaining 5 components was as follows: dilated fundus examination 91.1%, central corneal thickness (CCT) 88.6%, visual field 78.9%, gonioscopy 47.5%, and target intraocular pressure (IOP) 15.6%. in total, 32.8% of patients were seen once, whereas the remaining 67.2% had multiple visits. In patients with multiple visits, providers were more likely to document systemic history (100.0% vs. 97.5%; P=0.0346), review of systems (100.0% vs. 97.5%; P=0.0346), gonioscopy (60.0% vs. 22.0%; P<0.001), CCT (94.2% vs. 77.1%; P<0.001), visual field (97.5% vs. 40.7%; P<0.001), and target IOP (22.4% vs. 1.7%; P<0.001) compared with single visit patients. In stratifying results by diagnosis, POAG patients more often received visual field testing (92.7% vs. 68.9%; P<0.001) and had an established target IOP (35.1% vs. 1.4%; P<0.001) compared with POAGS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with PPP guidelines for glaucoma care was very high for most elements but lower for performing dilated fundus examination, CCT, visual field, gonioscopy, and target IOP. This study highlights deficiencies in care likely to hamper the detection of glaucoma progression.