A catalyst for change

Evaluation of the Manchester COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES)

INTRODUCTION

Pressure on capacity in ophthalmology alongside the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to the development of the COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES), allowing patients to receive a prompt ophthalmic consultation, including remotely. The aim of this study was to conduct a service evaluation of CUES in Manchester.

METHODS

Data were collected both prospectively and retrospectively from both primary and secondary care over an 8-week period from June to August 2020.

RESULTS

In primary care CUES in Greater Manchester (GM) 2461 patients were assessed, with a majority self-referring to the service (68.7%, n = 1844). 91.7% of cases initially screened for CUES were deemed eligible and given a telemedicine appointment in GM; 53.3% of these cases required face-to-face consultation. 14.3% of cases seen within in GM CUES (351 out of 2461) were provisionally referred to secondary care. Contemporaneously the main provider emergency eyecare department (EED) attendances were reduced by 37.7% per month between April and December 2020 inclusive, compared to the same months in 2019. Patients attending a CUES face-to-face assessment were more likely to have a diagnosis in agreement with secondary care, compared to patients referred in from telemedicine assessment only (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This evaluation of CUES demonstrates a high level of primary care activity alongside a sustained reduction in EED cases. The case-mix of patients seen within EED following referral appears to be of a less benign nature than those cases seen prior to the introduction of CUES.

Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England

Objectives

This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England.

Methods

Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from six practices in Scotland and England. If no reply was found, replies/records were copied from HES records. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited against established standards, evaluating whether referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated.

Results

From 905 de-identified referrals, RR ranged from 2.6 to 8.7%. From COs’ perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 37 to 84% (Scotland) and 26 to 49% (England). A total of 88–96% of referrals (Scotland) and 63–76% (England) were seen in the HES. Adjusting for cases when it is reasonable to expect replies, RRR becomes 45–92% (Scotland) and 38–62% (England) with RRR significantly greater in Scotland (P = 0.015). Replies were copied to patients in 0–21% of cases. Referrals were to the appropriate service and judged necessary in ≥90% of cases in both jurisdictions. Accuracy of referral ranged from 89 to 97% (Scotland) and 81 to 98% (England). The reply addressed the reason for referral in 94–100% of cases (Scotland) and 93–97% (England) and was meaningful in 95–100% (Scotland) and 94–99% (England).

Conclusions

Despite the interdisciplinary joint statement on sharing patient information, this audit highlights variable standard of referrals and deficits in replies to the referring COs, with one exception in Scotland. Replies from HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in England

PURPOSE

In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES.

METHODS

Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 459 de-identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%-8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%-76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%-49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%-62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%-21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%-97% and were accurate in 81%-98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%-97% and was meaningful in 94%-99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.