Technical Note: A comparison of a novel direct ophthalmoscope, the OptyseTM, to conventional direct ophthalmoscopes

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.

Comparison of two ophthalmoscopes for direct ophthalmoscopy

BACKGROUND

To measure the ease of use and performance of the Optyse lens-free ophthalmoscope compared with the standard Keeler pocket ophthalmoscope, and to assess its suitability as an inexpensive ophthalmoscope for medical students.

DESIGN

Randomized cross-over study.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty second-year medical students, 10 as ophthalmoscopists ('observers') and 10 as 'patients'.

METHODS

Students used both ophthalmoscopes to examine the optic disc in each eye of 10 'patients'. They were randomized as to the order in which they were used. A Consultant ophthalmologist was used as the gold standard.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcome measures were accuracy in estimating vertical cup:disc ratio (VCDR), ease of use (EOU) for each examination, and overall ease of use (OEOU).

RESULTS

Of 400 attempted eye examinations, sufficient visualization was achieved in 220 cases to allow a VCDR estimation: 107/200 VCDR estimates with the Optyse and 113/200 with the Keeler. Accuracy of VCDR estimates was better with the Optyse by the equivalent of 0.05 VCDR (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in EOU or OEOU between the two ophthalmoscopes. EOU for 400 examinations: median (IQR) of 6 (3-8) for Optyse versus 6 (3-8) for Keeler (P = 0.648). OEOU for 20 scores: median (IQR) of 6.5 (2-9) for Optyse versus 5.5 (3-8) for Keeler (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

Medical students found the Optyse and Keeler pocket ophthalmoscopes to be of similar ease of use and performed slightly better with the Optyse when estimating VCDR. The lens-free Optyse ophthalmoscope is a reasonable alternative to the standard Keeler pocket ophthalmoscope.