Advancing low vision services: A plan for Australian optometry

Access to low vision rehabilitation services in Australia: practitioner perspective

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The burden of vision loss is both personal and economic. Having reduced vision can restrict access to education, job opportunities, and other activities, and patients can require substantial government funds for treatment and rehabilitation. An in-depth investigation of barriers and enablers is required to improve access to low vision rehabilitation services.

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation services, leading to improved clinical and functional abilities. However not all patients make use of these resources.

METHODS

A purposive sample of primary eyecare practitioners (optometrists and orthoptists who held a variety of roles in clinical practice, academia and low vision specific organisations) were invited to participate in focus groups that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The resulting data were de-identified, cleaned, independently coded by two researchers and compared. Data were analysed using an interpretative phenomenological approach that included inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 21 practitioners attending the five focus groups, 67% were female and 33% were male. The participants were optometrists and orthoptists with a wide range (4 to 20+ years) of clinical experience in eyecare service delivery. Four major themes emerged from the analysis: three themes focus on identifying barriers, while one theme highlighted potential enablers. These themes encompassed barriers impacting referral frequency, practitioner knowledge, patient experience, and enablers that suggest improvement options for enhancing low vision services.

CONCLUSION

Miscommunication between service providers, miscommunication between patients and clinicians, late referral, cost of services and social stigma were major barriers preventing patients from receiving low vision services. Most practitioners admitted limited knowledge of the scope of services provided by low vision organisations, suggesting there is a need for enablers such as professional development, improved communication between service providers, enhanced referral guidelines and increased public awareness.

Developing consensus-based referral criteria for low vision services in Australia

PURPOSE

To develop expert consensus on referral criteria for low vision services in Australia.

METHODS

In a modified online Delphi process, a panel of 38 Australian experts in low vision (including ophthalmologists, optometrists, orthoptists, occupational therapists, orientation and mobility professionals, researchers and managers) participated in three rounds of consensus building over a period of 5 months commencing in 2019. Initially, 90 statements were developed, addressing what should be included in best-practice low vision referral criteria, currently used criteria, timing of referral and responsibility for referral. By the third round, these had been reduced and refined to a total of four statements.

RESULTS

In three Delphi rounds, the expert panel produced three key recommendations for low vision referral: (1) that low vision referral should be based mainly on the impact of uncorrectable vision impairment on function and well-being; (2) clinical measures of visual acuity and visual field might be a secondary consideration and (3) it is important to fully inform a person about low vision services at an early stage of vision loss and to involve them in decision making about referral. There was consensus on the need for clear referral pathways and that both ophthalmologists and optometrists have primary responsibility to refer for low vision services.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recommendations and guidelines should not replace sound individual clinical judgement, promotion and adoption of these consensus recommendations could assist health care professionals in providing appropriate and timely referral for low vision services to the benefit of people with vision impairment.

Barriers to Low Vision Services Among Optometrists in Saudi Arabia

Introduction:

This study identifies the barriers and challenges to the provision of low vision services among practicing optometrists in Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

In this study, a self-administered online structured survey for practicing optometrists was used. Responses were collected to understand the number and percentage of low vision service providers, level of awareness, and barriers to the provision of low vision services.

Results:

This study included 154 (79 females and 75 males) practicing optometrists. They were from the five regions of Saudi Arabia (23 cities). The age of the practitioners ranged from 22 to 54 years. They had Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees. Forty-four participants (30%) provided low vision services. The major barriers reported were lack of training (87%), lack of awareness about low vision services (76%), lack of availability of low vision devices (70%), lack of motivation (65%), low vision services being time-consuming (55%), being busy in providing general optometry (65%), and lack of financial sources (31%).

Conclusion:

Building an efficient model for low vision rehabilitation in Saudi Arabia is needed. Moreover, encouraging more optometrists to be involved in low vision rehabilitation is necessary. There is also a need for more low vision education, national health coverage of patients with low vision, and better collaboration between low vision service providers.

Rehabilitation Referral for Patients With Irreversible Vision Impairment Seen in a Public Safety-Net Eye Clinic

Importance

The prevalence of irreversible vision impairment in the United States is expected to increase by 2050. Vision rehabilitation is the primary treatment option. Clinical trials have established its efficacy in improving quality of life. Yet studies indicate that patients experience many barriers to accessing low-vision care.

Objectives

To examine the rate of referral for low-vision rehabilitation services by resident and attending ophthalmologists for adults with irreversible vision impairment and to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of patients about vision rehabilitation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study with enrollment from June 20, 2016, to January 31, 2017, of 143 adults 18 years or older seen in a publicly funded, comprehensive eye clinic in Jefferson County, Alabama, and having 1 or both eyes with irreversible vision impairment (visual acuity was defined as 20/60 or worse) per the electronic health record.

Exposures

Demographic characteristics; patient questionnaire on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about vision rehabilitation; general cognitive status (Short Orientation-Memory-Concentration test); depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9); health literacy (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, Revised [REALM-R]); and self-reported difficulty in everyday activities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients with irreversible vision impairment who were referred by ophthalmologists to low-vision rehabilitation services per the electronic health record.

Results

Of 143 patients enrolled with irreversible vision impairment in 1 or both eyes, the mean (SD) age was 55.4 (11.1) years and 68 (47.6%) were women. Most patients were African American (123 [86.0%]), uninsured (88 [61.5%]), and unemployed (92 [64.3%]); on average, they had normal cognitive status, minor depressive symptoms, and limited health literacy. As noted in the electronic health record, the rate of referral for low-vision rehabilitation services was 11.4% for patients with irreversible bilateral vision impairment (4 of 35 patients) and 1.9% for those with unilateral impairment (2 of 108). Most patients with bilateral (31 of 34 [91.2%]) and unilateral (90 of 97 [92.8%]) impairment indicated that they were bothered by their vision impairment, and most reported difficulty with reading (33 of 34 patients [97.1%] who were bilaterally impaired vs 85 of 104 [81.7%] who were unilaterally impaired).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study suggest a need to better educate ophthalmologists and residents in ophthalmology about referrals to low-vision rehabilitation services for patients with irreversible vision impairment.

A Global Public Health Perspective: Facilitating Access to Assistive Technology

SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians should not overlook vulnerable populations with limited access to assistive technology (AT), the importance of collaboration in multidisciplinary teams, advocacy for enabling environments, and supportive health systems. Resources, a model of care, and recommendations can assist clinicians in contributing to changing attitudes, expanding knowledge, and improving the lives of many.The increasing availability of innovative advances in AT can immeasurably enhance the quality of life of people with disabilities. Clinicians will undoubtedly welcome the prospect of having cutting-edge AT available to prescribe to individuals who consult them. Arguably, though, the development of innovative strategies to improve access to AT, especially to underserved people "left behind," is equally urgent. Current efforts are inadequate, with millions of people with disabilities not being reached. Particularly at risk are women, children, and the elderly, as well as poorer people who live in resource-poor and remote areas, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Not only must physical access be facilitated, but also quality services must be available. Good-quality, affordable AT, which is appropriate and acceptable to the user, would ideally be provided by competent personnel, working in multidisciplinary teams, offering comprehensive, person-centered services, including rehabilitation, fully integrated into the various levels of the health system. Clinicians can contribute to improving access to quality services, participate in initiatives aiming to increase the knowledge of health personnel and the public, engage in advocacy to change attitudes, influence legislation, and raise awareness of universal health coverage-ultimately facilitating access to AT for all.

Profile of the Australian College of Optometry low vision clinic

BACKGROUND

The number of Australians living with vision impairment or blindness is expected to increase substantially due to the ageing population and prevalence of age-related eye disease. In response, the Australian College of Optometry (ACO) commenced a low vision clinic in 2013. The ACO is a not-for-profit organisation providing eye-care services to more than 60,000 Victorians per year experiencing economic or social disadvantage. Consultation fees are bulk-billed to the Australian national health care scheme - Medicare - while spectacles and visual aids are subsidised through the state government-funded Victorian Eyecare Service. The aim of this study was to determine the profile and prescribing patterns of the new optometry-led low vision clinic, and report the findings of a short-term loan magnifier pilot study.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of 270 patient records was conducted. Additionally, a short-term loan magnifier program was pilot tested to ascertain the demand for, and benefits of, such a program among this cohort.

RESULTS

The median age was 77 years (interquartile range 64 to 85 years), with 52 per cent being female. The main cause of vision impairment was age-related macular degeneration (40 per cent). At least one-third primarily spoke a language other than English. The majority (75 per cent) were referred by the optometrist to the onsite consultant occupational therapist for immediate assistance with activities of daily living and onward referral for additional comprehensive services, as required. Of the 49 participants who completed the loan magnifier study, only nine exchanged the magnifier/s initially prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACO has established a low vision service within a large optometry clinic for people experiencing social and economic disadvantage. Where a program of subsidised low-cost magnifiers is available, there is little benefit to short-term loans of magnifiers. Providing basic affordable low vision aids and rehabilitation within a large primary care optometry setting can facilitate acceptability and uptake of low vision services that increase quality of life.

An update on the characteristics of patients attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic

BACKGROUND

Since 1972, the Australian College of Optometry has worked in partnership with Vision Australia to provide multidisciplinary low-vision care at the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic. In 1999, Wolffsohn and Cochrane reported on the demographic characteristics of patients attending Kooyong. Sixteen years on, the aim of this study is to review the demographics of the Kooyong patient cohort and prescribing patterns.

METHODS

Records of all new patients (n = 155) attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic for optometry services between April and September 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Median age was 84.3 years (range 7.7 to 98.1 years) with 59 per cent female. The majority of patients presented with late-onset degenerative pathology, 49 per cent with a primary diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration. Many (47.1 per cent) lived with their families. Mean distance visual acuity was 0.57 ± 0.47 logMAR or approximately 6/24. The median spectacle-corrected near visual acuity was N8 (range N3 to worse than N80). Fifty patients (32.3 per cent) were prescribed new spectacles, 51 (32.9 per cent) low vision aids and five (8.3 per cent) were prescribed electronic magnification devices. Almost two-thirds (63.9 per cent) were referred for occupational therapy management and 12.3 per cent for orientation and mobility services.

CONCLUSIONS

The profile of patients presenting for low-vision services at Kooyong is broadly similar to that identified in 1999. Outcomes appear to be similar, aside from an expected increase in electronic devices and technological solutions; however, the nature of services is changing, as treatments for ocular diseases advance and assistive technology develops and becomes more accessible. Alongside the aging population and age-related ocular disease being the predominant cause of low vision in Australia, the health-funding landscape is becoming more restrictive. The challenge for the future will be to provide timely, high-quality care in an economically efficient model.

A Proposed Model for Integrated Low-Vision Rehabilitation Services in Canada

PURPOSE

The provision and funding of low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) are very variable across Canada. Quebec is well served by 14 government-funded rehabilitation centers. In most provinces, there are no such multidisciplinary services-optometrists offer LVR from their offices to a greater or lesser degree or undertake assessments in centers run by CNIB (formerly Canadian National Institute for the Blind). No integrated model for LVR exists across Canada. This document proposes such a model, which focuses on the profession of optometry, but may also be applicable to ophthalmology.

METHODS

This article describes different models of LV provision, the evidence for their relative effectiveness, the current situation in Canada, including the variability between areas and the need to increase referrals to LVR, and the current international consensus for LV provision. With the projected increase in people with LV, a generally accepted LV model for Canada is required to improve patient care.

RESULTS

It has become recognized in the global community that a tiered system may be required to provide for patients who range in their visual rehabilitation needs and geographic locations. The proposed LVR model includes three levels: 1. Screening/recognition of a potential patient with LV followed by appropriate triage. All optometrists should be involved at this level. 2. Management of the patient with minimum visual impairment/disability. This level of LVR can take place in a local optometry office with a minimal of extra equipment or devices. Level 3: Comprehensive LVR for patients with more vision loss and greater disabilities. Level 3 requires collaboration with other professionals, and three mechanisms are proposed by this which may take place.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed model is expected to be useful for future education, policy decisions, and collaboration in Canada, and it may also be of interest for the development of LV services in other countries.

Low-vision service provision by optometrists: a Canadian nationwide survey

PURPOSE

To document the degree to which Canadian optometrists are involved in the provision of low-vision (LV) care and their referral patterns. To investigate the barriers to providing optometric low-vision services (LVS).

METHODS

Practicing optometrists across Canada were randomly sampled and invited to participate in a questionnaire that included questions on personal profile, primary practice profile, levels of LV care offered, patterns of referral, and barriers to provision of LV care. Questions included a combination of multiple choice and open-ended formats, and included hypothetical cases.

RESULTS

A total of 459 optometrists responded (response rate, 24.8%). Optometrists estimated that 1% (range, 0 to 100%) of their patients were LV patients yet also estimated that 10% of their patients had acuity equal to or worse than 20/40. Thirty-five percent of respondents indicated that their primary practice offered LV care, 75.6% would manage a patient with minimum disability and simple goals themselves, whereas 10.7% would manage a patient with more than minimal visual disability who needed more specialized LV devices (e.g., telescopes, electronic aids, and custom-designed microscopes); 84.3% of optometrists would assess for basic magnification and lighting in a hypothetical patient with early age-related macular degeneration, whereas 15% would undertake full LV rehabilitation in advanced age-related macular degeneration. Optometrists commonly referred to CNIB (formerly the Canadian National Institute for the Blind), yet only 10.7% of respondents almost always received a written report after referral. Those who would not undertake LV assessment stated that they lacked the knowledge, equipment, or experience; that LV assessment is too time consuming; and that the cost is too prohibitive.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive study of LVS provision by optometrists in Canada. In order for optometrists to become more involved in LVS, there is a need for more LV education, provincial health coverage of optometric LVS, and better collaboration communication between LV providers.