The short‐sighted perspective of long‐term eye health‐care

A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

Despite the existence of evidence-based recommendations to decrease risk and progression of Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) for some time, self-reported practices suggest that eyecare professionals' advice and people with AMD's adherence to these recommendations can be very poor. This study uses qualitative methods to explore Australian eyecare professionals' perspective on barriers to effective AMD care. Seven focus groups involving 65 optometrists were conducted by an experienced facilitator. A nominal group technique was used to identify, prioritize and semi-quantify barriers and enablers to AMD care. Participants individually ranked their perceived top five barriers and enablers with the most important granted a score of 5 and the least important a score of 1. For each barrier or enabler, the number of votes it received and its total score were recorded. Barriers and enablers selected by at least one participant in their top 5 were then qualitatively analysed, grouped using thematic analysis and total score calculated for each consolidated barrier or enabler. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with 10 ophthalmologists and 2 optometrists. Contributions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. One hundred and sixty-nine barriers and 51 enablers to AMD care were identified in the focus groups. Of these, 102 barriers and 42 enablers were selected as one of their top 5 by at least one participant and further consolidated into 16 barriers and 10 enablers after thematic analysis. Factors impacting AMD care identified through analysis of the transcripts were coded to three categories of influence: patient-centered, practitioner-centered, and structural factors. Eyecare professionals considered poor care pathways, people with AMD's poor disease understanding / denial, and cost of care / lack of funding, as the most significant barriers to AMD care; they considered shared care model, access, and communication as the most significant enablers to good AMD care. These findings suggest that Australian eyecare professionals perceive that there is a need for improved patient support systems and appropriately funded, clearer care pathway to benefit people with AMD.

Therapeutic endorsement enhances compliance with national glaucoma guidelines in Australian and New Zealand optometrists

PURPOSE

Previous studies confirmed that optometrists have access to and confidence in applying clinical tests recommended for glaucoma assessment. Less is known about factors best predicting compliance with national clinical guidelines and thus by inference, the provision of suitable care by primary care ophthalmic practitioners. We utilised the unique two-tiered profession (therapeutic and non-therapeutic scope of practice) in Australia and New Zealand to assess the prospective adherence to glaucoma guidelines dependent on the clinician's background.

METHODS

Australian and New Zealand optometrists were surveyed on ophthalmic techniques for glaucoma assessment, criteria for the evaluation of the optic nerve head, glaucoma risk categories and review times while also recording background, training, and experience. Parameters identifying progression/conversion and patients' risk levels were analysed comparatively to ophthalmologists' opinions. Linear regression analysis identified variables significantly improving the likelihood of concordance with guidelines.

RESULTS

Reported application of techniques complied well with glaucoma guidelines although gonioscopy and pachymetry, pupil dilation for optic nerve head examination, and acquisition of permanent records were less frequently employed. The main predictors for entry-level diagnostic standards were therapeutic endorsement together with the associated knowledge of relevant guidance and procedural confidence. Other findings suggested a potential underestimation in the value of optic disc size and intraocular pressure for the prediction of glaucoma risk, while optometrists more frequently relied on the outcomes of non-standardised automated perimetry and auxiliary imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Optometrists in Australia and New Zealand may not always exercise optimal clinical acumen regarding techniques/criteria for glaucoma diagnosis. Therapeutic endorsement was gradually adopted in different jurisdictions in various forms since 1999 and is mandatory for registration since late 2014. The result of the two-tiered optometric cohorts suggest that inclusion of therapeutic training as part of the core training is likely a key factor to enhanced compliance with glaucoma guidelines. Improved adherence to the current clinical standards should positively impact on the facilitation of appropriate glaucoma diagnosis and management. Obligatory knowledge and possibly accreditation of available guidelines might ensure a uniform standard in glaucoma testing protocols in concordance with compulsory entry-level skills.

Clinical model assisting with the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects

BACKGROUND

Optimizing patient management will reduce unnecessary vision loss in glaucoma through early detection. One method is the introduction of collaborative care schemes between optometrists and ophthalmologists.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of the Centre for Eye Health (CFEH) on glaucoma patient outcomes and management in primary optometric care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients referred to CFEH by optometrists for a glaucoma assessment were eligible for this study if written consent was provided (500 participants were randomly chosen).

METHODS

Clinical data were classified according to disease risk and implemented patient care and analysed against the original diagnosis and patient parameters, followed by statistical analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Two main parameters were evaluated; suitable referral of patients for glaucoma condition assessment and appropriate implementation of follow-up care.

RESULTS

The majority of patients referred for glaucoma assessment (86.2%) were classified as glaucoma suspects or likely to have glaucoma, indicating suitable referral of patients for a CFEH evaluation. Further, the involvement of CFEH resulted in a false positive rate of 7.8% for those patients who proceeded to ophthalmological care. However, long-term optometric patient care was not maintained for up to a third of primarily lower risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The investigated collaborative eye health-care model led to a substantial improvement in appropriate referrals of glaucoma patients to ophthalmologists and could be suitable for optimizing patient care and utilization of resources. Improvement in follow-up of patients by optometrists is required to minimize inappropriately discontinued patient care.