Evaluation of the effectiveness of ophthalmic assistants as screeners for glaucoma in North India

Comparison between the Recommendations of Glaucoma Specialists and OCT Report Specialists for Further Ophthalmic Evaluation in a Community-Based Screening Study

PURPOSE

To compare glaucoma referral patterns between glaucoma and OCT report specialists and to determine what influence, if any, a designated OCT reading could have on a glaucoma specialist's judgments.

DESIGN

Retrospective, exploratory study.

SUBJECTS

We included 483 eyes (243 individuals) from high-risk New York City neighborhoods screened as part of a mobile van glaucoma screening study from July 2017 to October 2017.

METHODS

All participants underwent comprehensive testing, including visual acuity, commercial OCT imaging, gonioscopy, intraocular pressure, frequency-doubling testing, and funduscopic assessment. Three glaucoma specialists independently evaluated all the collected data to determine whether a further glaucoma workup referral was recommended. Two OCT report specialists evaluated only the OCT image for each eye using the commercial report as well as a specialized, customized report. In phase II, the glaucoma specialists then re-evaluated a subset of these eyes, this time with an OCT report specialist's judgments made available.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of glaucoma specialist referrals made by glaucoma specialists versus OCT report specialists.

RESULTS

Intergrader agreement between glaucoma specialists was 60% (κ = 0.43) and between report specialists was 95% (κ = 0.77). There was an agreement between a single OCT report specialist and the consensus (2 of 3) of glaucoma specialists in 74% of eyes (κ= 0.32). Of the eyes studied, 25% were referred for further glaucoma evaluation by the glaucoma specialists alone and 1% were referred for further glaucoma workup by only the report specialist. With the addition of the report specialist's judgments, referral pattern changes varied by glaucoma specialist but overall agreement increased to 85% (κ = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a fair level of agreement regarding glaucoma referral recommendations between glaucoma specialists with access to comprehensive screening data and OCT report specialists with access to only OCT data. Overall agreement increased when the designated OCT evaluation was made available to the glaucoma specialists. These results may aid in the design of future large-scale glaucoma screening studies.

Validity and reliability of eye healthcare professionals in the assessment of glaucoma - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE(S)

To explore the validity and reliability of eye healthcare professionals with different levels of training in diagnosing and/or identifying glaucomatous progression.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Substantial pressure is being placed on our current eye healthcare workforce by chronic diseases such as glaucoma. Shared care schemes and role expansion of professionals other than ophthalmologists are being proposed to alleviate this pressure. A sound evidence base is imperative to determine whether other allied health professionals are skilled and clinically competent, when it comes to taking on these new roles in glaucoma management.

METHODS

A systematic review of research articles identified in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library was performed. Studies which investigated rater reliability of various health professionals in diagnosing and/or identifying glaucoma progression against a reference standard were included.

RESULTS

Of the 4088 publications identified by the initial database search, 32 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated positive results, with most finding moderate to substantial agreement for inter- and intra-rater reliability across all testing modalities. The eye health professionals with ophthalmology training consistently attained the greatest agreement. When allied health professionals with different levels of training were compared, those who had completed residency training were significantly better than those who had not.

CONCLUSION

The studies included in this review show promising results, including those raters without ophthalmology training. A lack of power calculations, unequal sample sizes in some studies and the diversity of the testing procedures used make it difficult to make sound inferences.