A qualitative study of stakeholder views regarding participation in locally commissioned enhanced optometric services

Quality of Care and Stakeholders' Perceptions of PEC Implementation in Singapore: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol

PURPOSE

Primary eye care (PEC) model aims to facilitate right-siting of care for patients with stable and non-complex conditions by upskilling optometrists. However, there is 1) a lack of examination on PEC's quality of care (measured as degree of agreement in plan of care between upskilled optometrists and ophthalmologists) and 2) no comprehensive real-world evaluation on operational viability and stakeholders' perception of the community-based PEC model. Holistic evaluation is important as in-depth understanding of stakeholders' experience in implementation will be key to ensure the long-term sustainability and scalability of this PEC model. This study aims to examine the quality of care provided at PEC as well as the contextual factors, strategies, and processes that influence implementation, sustainability, and scalability of PEC.

METHODS

This study will adopt a mixed-method sequential explanatory design, guided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model framework. First, the quality of care will be assessed by examining the degree of agreement between PEC optometrists and ophthalmologists on patients' plan of care. Second, qualitative research design will be employed to understand the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. In-depth interviews will be conducted with patients and focused group discussions will be conducted with healthcare professionals. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data will be achieved by employing the building and merging approach.

CONCLUSION

This study will identify areas that could be improved to increase PEC's operational efficiency and enhance its service utilisation. Importantly, key lessons and strategies derived from these evaluations will help to facilitate future nationwide implementation of PEC.

Evaluating referrals of flashing lights and floaters coming into secondary care from primary care

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Optometrists should look to take every opportunity to expand their knowledge, understanding and skills pertaining to vitreoretinal conditions.

BACKGROUND

Despite the existence of acute eye care schemes and the up-skilling of optometrists, many units are still noticing large numbers of poor-quality referrals with high false positive rates. The authors pondered whether these schemes are effective.

METHODS

At two different time points, a prospective analysis of patients took place, of all the flashing lights and floaters referrals coming into secondary care at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Wales, UK. The following data was captured: the exact source of the primary care referral, the diagnosis being queried, the secondary care diagnoses made and the secondary care management decisions. The accuracy of retinal break and Shafer's sign detection were also directly compared between primary care and secondary care using Cohen's Kappa Coefficient.

RESULTS

For the 2018 period, n = 51 patients were included. For the 2022-23 period n = 100 patients were included. The majority of referrals during both periods were from optometrists (>80%) via the WECS pathway. The most common diagnoses being queried were retinal breaks (~50%), followed by retinal detachments (~20%). Interestingly up to 20% of patients seen in secondary care were diagnosed as normal examinations and ~ 20%. Over 1/3 of patients were discharged after their first visit to the EEC. Statistically significant differences were found between the accuracy of retinal tear and Shafer's identification between the primary and secondary care settings.

CONCLUSION

A high number of false positive referrals are coming into secondary care from the WECS pathway and clear training and education needs have been identified.

Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS): a mixed methods service evaluation

PURPOSE

A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of a Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS), with low-risk glaucoma patients being reviewed within primary care optometry.

METHODS

98 low-risk glaucoma patients were identified as suitable for monitoring in primary care and reviewed by accredited optometrists in community practice supported by a clinical management plan. Safety was assessed by reviewing concordance of management plans created by primary care optometrists and the secondary care team. Patients' and primary care optometrists' feedback were collated via surveys. Carbon emissions were calculated through comparison of patient travel to primary and secondary care.

RESULTS

93.8% of patients reviewed by primary care met criteria for ongoing monitoring in primary care after initial review with 4.9% of patients being recalled to secondary care due to clinical instability. Safety and efficacy were demonstrated with agreement of management plans between primary and secondary care of 97.8%, kappa =0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.60-1.00), with no patients being identified as false negatives where recall back to secondary care was required. Overall satisfaction with PEGS was 100% according to a patient survey. Respondents of the primary care optometry survey felt very or somewhat confident in delivering care, with comments suggesting they felt supported by secondary care. Carbon emissions are reduced by approximately two thirds when patients are seen in primary care versus attending the hospital.

CONCLUSION

PEGS is a safe and effective service, reducing the burden for secondary care, while carbon emissions are reduced due to shorter travelling distances, demonstrating environmental sustainability.

Referrals from community optometrists in England and their replies: A mixed methods study

PURPOSE

Community optometrists, through routine eye examinations, identify patients with disease or ocular abnormalities requiring referral to the Hospital Eye Service. In many cases no reply to the referral letter is received, resulting in some patients being re-referred unnecessarily, potentially increasing the number of other patients who lose sight whilst on hospital waiting lists. This study investigated, qualitatively and quantitatively, factors influencing optometric referrals and replies.

METHODS

The three-phase, sequential mixed methods study started with a literature review and qualitative phase, interviewing stakeholders to identify issues for exploration in subsequent phases. The second, quantitative phase, undertook documentary analysis of 349 patient referral records from three optometric practice modalities (domiciliary, independently owned, and corporate chain) in England. A final qualitative phase obtained views from stakeholders to explore unexplained findings from the first two phases.

RESULTS

Phase 1 identified communication, financial, professional and technological issues for further exploration. In Phase 2, the referral rate was 22.2% for domiciliary provider, 2.1% for independent practice and 2.5% for the corporate chain, with the variation most likely explained by patient age and associated ophthalmic disease, illness and disability. The referral reply rate was 5.7% for domiciliary provider, 25.0% for independent practice and 4.9% for the corporate chain. The community optometrist remained unaware of the outcome of their referral in 72.8% of cases. Qualitative analyses indicate the main factors influencing referral reply rates are technology, the General Medical Practitioner, community optometrists' utility to and utility of the National Health Service and patient mobilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

The low referral reply rate creates a break in the feedback loop required to raise the standard of referrals and avoid unnecessary re-referral. Of the factors identified that influence referral reply rates, technology is key in view of the increasing use of online referral platforms. Feedback to the referring optometrist should be embedded in such systems.

A prospective evaluation of the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service across five areas in England

Purpose

Although urgent primary eye care schemes exist in some areas of England, their current safety is unknown. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to quantify the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID‐19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES) across Luton, Bedford, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire and Harrogate.

Methods

Consenting patients with acute onset eye problems who had accessed the service were contacted to ascertain what the optometrist's recommendation was, whether this worked, if they had to present elsewhere and how satisfied they were with the CUES.

Results

A total of 27% (170/629) and 6.3% (28/445) of patients managed virtually and in person, respectively, did not have their acute eye problem resolved. Regression analysis revealed that patients who attended a face‐to‐face consultation were 4.66 times more likely to be correctly managed [Exp (β) = 5.66], relative to those solely managed virtually. Optometrists' phone consultations failed to detect conditions such as stroke, intracranial hypertension, suspected space occupying lesions, orbital cellulitis, scleritis, corneal ulcer, wet macular degeneration, uveitis with macular oedema and retinal detachment. Of referrals to hospital ophthalmology departments, in total, 19% were false‐positives. Patients, however, were typically very satisfied with the service. Uptake was associated with socioeconomic status.

Conclusion

The present study found that a virtual assessment service providing optometrist tele‐consultations was not effective at resolving patients' acute‐onset eye problems. The range and number of pathologies missed by tele‐consultations suggests that the service model in the present study was detrimental to patient safety. To improve this, optometrists should follow evidence based guidance when attempting to manage patients virtually, or in person. For example, patients presenting with acute‐onset symptoms of flashing lights and/or floaters require an urgent dilated fundus examination. Robust data collection on service safety is required on an ongoing basis.

Analysis of UK eye casualty presentations

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Optometrists upskilling and participating in enhanced optometric schemes has the potential to improve service accessibility and alleviate pressure on hospital eye services.

BACKGROUND

There is a growing demand for eye care in the UK with rising hospital attendances thought to be due in part to an ageing population and a shift in behaviour to favour emergency secondary care.

METHODS

Records of first-time presentations to the eye casualty department at the County Hospital (Wye Valley NHS Trust), Hereford, UK, over a month were analysed retrospectively and sequentially. The proportion of patients from optometrist referrals with conditions potentially requiring pharmacological intervention, that could have been retained within community optometry by an independent prescriber, was assessed. For general practitioner and self-referrals, the reasons for visit were compared to the Minor Eye Conditions Service criteria for inclusion. Patient conditions reviewed at the hospital following their initial presentation were grouped according to those who could have been discharged to a commissioned optometric service.

RESULTS

The records of 421 patients were organised by the source of referral and condition diagnosed by the hospital practitioner. Thirty-three percent of optometrist referrals could have been managed by an independent prescribing optometrist. Ninety-two percent of patients presenting from general practitioner referrals and 83 percent of self-referrals could have been assessed via the local optometric scheme. Sixty-six percent of patients attending hospital for follow-up could have been seen within the community.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis highlights the value of commissioned local optometric community services to address acute ocular symptoms and the value of an independent prescribing qualification in helping to further alleviate the burden on hospital emergency eye services. The large number of self-referrals suggests that the general public needs to be further educated on services that are available at a community optometry level.

Care pathways for glaucoma detection and monitoring in the UK

Glaucoma presents considerable challenges in providing clinically and cost-effective care pathways. While UK population screening is not seen as justifiable, arrangements for case finding have historically been considered relatively ineffective. Detection challenges include an undetected disease burden, whether from populations failing to access services or difficulties in delivering effective case-finding strategies, and a high false positive rate from referrals via traditional case finding pathways. The enhanced General Ophthalmic Service (GOS) in Scotland and locally commissioned glaucoma referral filtering services (GRFS) elsewhere have undoubtedly reduced false positive referrals, and there is emerging evidence of effectiveness of these pathways. At the same time, it is recognised that implementing GRFS does not intrinsically reduce the burden of undetected glaucoma and late presentation, and obvious challenges remain. In terms of diagnosis and monitoring, considerable growth in capacity remains essential, and non-medical health care professional (HCP) co-management and virtual clinics continue to be important solutions in offering requisite capacity. National guidelines, commissioning recommendations, and the Common Clinical Competency Framework have clarified requirements for such services, including recommendations on training and accreditation of HCPs. At the same time, the nature of consultant-delivered care and expectations on the glaucoma specialist's role has evolved alongside these developments. Despite progress in recent decades, given projected capacity requirements, further care pathways innovations appear mandated. While the timeline for implementing potential artificial intelligence innovations in streamlining care pathways is far from established, the glaucoma burden presents an expectation that such developments will need to be at the vanguard of future developments.

A needs assessment for a minor eye condition service within Leeds, Bradford and Airedale, UK

Background

There are a number of limitations to the present primary eye care system in the UK. Patients with minor eye conditions typically either have to present to their local hospital or GP, or face a charge when visiting eye care professionals (optometrists). Some areas of the UK have commissioned enhanced community services to alleviate this problem; however, many areas have not. The present study is a needs assessment of three areas (Leeds, Airedale and Bradford) without a Minor Eye Conditions Service (MECS), with the aim of determining whether such a service is clinically or economically viable.

Method

A pro forma was developed for optometrists and practice staff to complete when a patient presented whose reason for attending was due to symptoms indicative of a problem that could not be optically corrected. This form captured the reason for visit, whether the patient was seen, the consultation funding, the outcome and where the patient would have presented to if the optometrists could not have seen them. Optometrists were invited to participate via Local Optical Committees. Results were submitted via a Google form or a Microsoft Excel document and were analysed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

Seventy-five percent of patients were managed in optometric practice. Nine and 16% of patients required subsequent referral to their General Practitioner or hospital ophthalmology department, respectively. Should they not have been seen, 34% of patients would have presented to accident and emergency departments and 59% to their general practitioner. 53% of patients paid privately for the optometrist appointment, 28% of patients received a free examination either through use of General Ophthalmic Service sight tests (9%) or optometrist good will (19%) and 19% of patients did not receive a consultation and were redirected to other providers (e.g. pharmacy, accident and emergency or General Practitioner). 88% of patients were satisfied with the level of service. Cost-analyses revealed a theoretical cost saving of £3198 to the NHS across our sample for the study period, indicating cost effectiveness.

Conclusions

This assessment demonstrates that a minor eye condition service in the local areas would be economically and clinically viable and well received by patients.

Clinical effectiveness of the Manchester Glaucoma Enhanced Referral Scheme

Background

Glaucoma referral filtering schemes have operated in the UK for many years. However, there is a paucity of data on the false-negative (FN) rate. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of the Manchester Glaucoma Enhanced Referral Scheme (GERS), estimating both the false-positive (FP) and FN rates.

Method

Outcome data were collected for patients newly referred through GERS and assessed in ‘usual-care’ clinics to determine the FP rate (referred patients subsequently discharged at their first visit). For the FN rate, glaucoma suspects deemed not requiring referral following GERS assessment were invited to attend for a ‘reference standard’ examination including all elements of assessment recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) by a glaucoma specialist optometrist. A separate 33 cases comprising randomly selected referred and non-referred cases were reviewed independently by two glaucoma specialist consultant ophthalmologists to validate the reference standard assessment.

Results

1404 patients were evaluated in GERS during the study period; 651 (46.3%) were referred to the Hospital Eye Service (HES) and 753 (53.6%) were discharged. The FP rate in 307 assessable patients referred to the HES was 15.5%. This study reviewed 131 (17.4%) of those patients not referred to the HES through the GERS scheme; 117 (89.3%) were confirmed as not requiring hospital follow-up; 14 (10.7%) required follow-up, including 5 (3.8%) offered treatment. Only one patient (0.8%) in this sample met the GERS referral criteria and was not referred (true FN). There were no cases of missed glaucoma or non-glaucomatous pathology identified within our sample.

Conclusion

The Manchester GERS is an effective glaucoma filtering scheme with a low FP and FN rate.

Clinical safety of a minor eye conditions scheme in England delivered by community optometrists

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to monitor the activity and evaluate the clinical safety of a minor eye conditions scheme (MECS) conducted by accredited community optometrists in Lambeth and Lewisham, London.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Optometrists underwent an accredited training programme, including attendance at hospital eye services (HES) clinics. Patients who satisfied certain inclusion criteria were referred to accredited MECS optometrists by their general practitioners (GPs) or could self-refer. Data were extracted from clinical records. A sample of MECS clinical records was graded to assess the quality of the MECS optometrists' clinical management decisions. Referrals to the HES were assessed by the collaborating ophthalmologists and feedback was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 2123 patients (mean age 47 years) were seen over 12 months. Two-thirds of the patients (67.3%) were referred by their GP. The most common reasons for patients needing a MECS assessment were 'red eye' (36.7% of patients), 'painful white eye' (11.1%), 'flashes and floaters' (10.2%); 8.7% of patients had a follow-up appointment. Of the patients seen, 75.1% were retained in the community, 5.7% were referred to their GP and 18.9% were referred to the HES. Of the HES referrals, 49.1% were routine, 22.6% urgent and 28.3% emergency. Of the records reviewed, 94.5% were rated as appropriately managed; 89.2% of the HES referrals were considered appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that optometrists are in a good position to work very safely within the remits of the scheme and to assess risk.

The Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES): a virtual randomised balanced incomplete block trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) usually attend regular reviews, even when the disease is quiescent. Reviews are burdensome to health services, patients and carers.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the proportion of correct lesion classifications made by community-based optometrists and ophthalmologists from vignettes of patients; to estimate the cost-effectiveness of community follow-up by optometrists compared with follow-up by ophthalmologists in the Hospital Eye Service (HES); to ascertain views of patients, their representatives, optometrists, ophthalmologists and clinical commissioners on the proposed shared care model.

DESIGN

Community-based optometrists and ophthalmologists in the HES classified lesions from vignettes comprising clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard).

SETTING

Internet-based application.

PARTICIPANTS

Ophthalmologists had to have ≥ 3 years post-registration experience in ophthalmology, have passed part 1 of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, Diploma in Ophthalmology or equivalent examination, and have experience in the age-related macular degeneration service. Optometrists had to be fully qualified, be registered with the General Optical Council for ≥ 3 years and not be participating in nAMD shared care.

INTERVENTIONS

The trial sought to emulate a conventional trial in comparing optometrists' and ophthalmologists' decision-making, but vignettes, not patients, were assessed; therefore, there were no interventions. Participants received training prior to assessing vignettes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - correct classification of the activity status of a lesion based on a vignette, compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes - frequencies of potentially sight-threatening errors, participants' judgements about specific lesion components, participant-rated confidence in their decisions and cost-effectiveness of follow-up by community-based optometrists compared with HES ophthalmologists.

RESULTS

In total, 155 participants registered for the trial; 96 (48 in each professional group) completed training and main assessments and formed the analysis population. Optometrists and ophthalmologists achieved 1702 out of 2016 (84.4%) and 1722 out of 2016 (85.4%) correct classifications, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.25; p = 0.543]. Optometrists' decision-making was non-inferior to ophthalmologists' with respect to the pre-specified limit of 10% absolute difference (0.298 on the odds scale). Frequencies of sight-threatening errors were similar for optometrists and ophthalmologists [57/994 (5.7%) vs. 62/994 (6.2%), OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57; p = 0.789]. Ophthalmologists assessed lesion components as present less often than optometrists and were more confident about their lesion classifications than optometrists. The mean care-pathway cost for assessment was very similar by group, namely £397.33 for ophthalmologists and £410.78 for optometrists. The optometrist-led monitoring reviews were slightly more costly and less effective than ophthalmologist-led reviews, although the differences were extremely small. There was consensus that optometrist-led monitoring has the potential to reduce clinical workload and be more patient-centred. However, potential barriers are ophthalmologists' perceptions of optometrists' competence, the need for clinical training, the ability of the professions to work collaboratively and the financial feasibility of shared care for Clinical Commissioning Groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of optometrists to make nAMD retreatment decisions from vignettes is non-inferior to that of ophthalmologists. Various barriers to implementing shared cared for nAMD were identified.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

The Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES) study web application was robust and could be used for future training or research. The benefit of reducing HES workload was not considered in the economic evaluation. A framework of programme budgeting and marginal analysis could explicitly explore the resource implications of shifting resources within a given health service area, as the benefit of reducing HES workload was not considered in the economic evaluation. Future qualitative research could investigate professional differences of opinion that were identified in multidisciplinary focus groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07479761.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prospective study of glaucoma referrals across Europe: are we using resources wisely?

BACKGROUND

To investigate the outcomes of glaucoma referrals across different European countries.

METHODS

250 patients newly referred to tertiary referral glaucoma specialist practices in the UK, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy and Greece were prospectively enrolled (50 consecutive patients per centre). Referral accuracy and predictive value of referral criteria for an intervention or further monitoring (positive predictive value) were analysed.

RESULTS

Same-day discharges occurred in 43% (95% CI 39% to 75%) (12/28) of optometrist-initiated referrals (UK only), 37% (95% CI 30% to 45%) (59/158) of ophthalmologist-initiated referrals (all centres) and 54% (95% CI 40% to 68%) (26/48) of self-referrals (Hungary, Italy and Greece). The percentages from all referral sources were 46% (95% CI 32% to 60%) in the UK, 56% (95% CI 44% to 70%) in Hungary, 30% (95% CI 17% to 43%) in Slovenia, 22% (95% CI 11% to 34%) in Italy and 60% (95% CI 46% to 74%) in Greece (p<0.001). Overall, the referring criterion was confirmed in 54% (95% CI 45% to 63%) (64/119) for intraocular pressure (IOP) >21 mm Hg, 56% (95% CI 43% to 69%) (33/59) for a suspicious optic disc and 61% (95% CI 45% to 77%) (22/36) for a suspicious visual field, with large between-country differences (p<0.05 for all comparisons). Of all referrals, 32% (95% CI 26% to 37%) were initiated on the basis of IOP >21 mm Hg only. By combining the IOP criterion with any other referring criterion, the positive predictive value increased from 56% (95% CI 45% to 67%) to at least 89% (95% CI 68% to 100%). In the UK, a hypothetical IOP threshold of >26 mm Hg, as a requirement for IOP-only referrals, would reduce IOP-only referrals by 44%, while not missing any definite glaucoma cases.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of referrals was poor in the UK and the other countries. Requiring a combination of criteria and raising the IOP threshold for IOP-only referrals are needed to cut waste in clinical care.

Retrospective economic analysis of the transfer of services from hospitals to the community: an application to an enhanced eye care service

OBJECTIVE

This research aims to evaluate the wider health system effects of the introduction of an intermediate-tier service for eye care.

SETTING

This research employs the Minor Eye Conditions Scheme (MECS), an intermediate-tier eye care service introduced in two London boroughs, Lewisham and Lambeth, in April 2013.

DESIGN

Retrospective difference-in-differences analysis comparing changes over time in service use and costs between April 2011 and October 2014 in two commissioning areas that introduced an intermediate-tier service programme with changes in a neighbouring area that did not introduce the programme.

DATA SOURCES

MECS audit data; unit costs for MECS visits; volumes of first and follow-up outpatient attendances to hospital ophthalmology; the national schedule of reference costs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Volumes and costs of patients treated.

RESULTS

In one intervention area (Lewisham), general practitioner (GP) referrals to hospital ophthalmology decreased differentially by 75.2% (95% CI -0.918% to -0.587%) for first attendances, and by 40.3% for follow-ups (95% CI -0.489% to -0.316%). GP referrals to hospital ophthalmology decreased differentially by 30.2% (95% CI -0.468% to -0.137%) for first attendances in the other intervention area (Lambeth). Costs increased by 3.1% in the comparison area between 2011/2012 and 2013/2014. Over the same period, costs increased by less (2.5%) in one intervention area and fell by 13.8% in the other intervention area.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-tier services based in the community could potentially reduce volumes of patients referred to hospitals by GPs and provide replacement services at lower unit costs.

Effectiveness of UK optometric enhanced eye care services: a realist review of the literature

PURPOSE

UK demographic and legislative changes combined with increasing burdens on National Health Service manpower and budgets have led to extended roles for community optometrists providing locally-commissioned enhanced optometric services (EOS). This realist review's objectives were to develop programme theories that implicitly or explicitly explain quality outcomes for eye care provided by optometrists via EOS and to test these theories by investigating the effectiveness of services for cataract, glaucoma, and primary eye care.

METHODS

The review protocol was published on PROSPERO, and RAMESES publication standards were followed. Programme theories were formulated via scoping literature searches and expert consultation. The searching process involved all relevant electronic databases and grey literature, without restrictions on study design. Data synthesis focussed on questioning the integrity of each theory by considering supportive and refuting evidence from the source literature.

RESULTS

Good evidence exists for cataract, glaucoma and primary eye care EOS that: with appropriate training, accredited optometrists manage patients commensurate with usual care standards; genuine partnerships can exist between community and hospital providers for cataract and glaucoma EOS; patient satisfaction with all three types of service is high; cost-effectiveness of services is unproven for cataract and primary eye care, while glaucoma EOS cost-effectiveness depends on service type; contextual factors may influence service success.

CONCLUSIONS

The EOS reviewed are clinically effective and provide patient satisfaction but limited data is available on cost-effectiveness.

A technician-delivered 'virtual clinic' for triaging low-risk glaucoma referrals

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to describe the outcomes of a technician-delivered glaucoma referral triaging service with 'virtual review' of resultant data by a consultant ophthalmologist.Patients and methodsThe Glaucoma Screening Clinic reviewed new optometrist or GP-initiated glaucoma suspect referrals into a specialist ophthalmic hospital. Patients underwent testing by three ophthalmic technicians in a dedicated clinical facility. Data were reviewed at a different time and date by a consultant glaucoma ophthalmologist. Approximately 10% of discharged patients were reviewed in a face-to-face consultant-led clinic to examine the false-negative rate of the service.ResultsBetween 1 March 2014 and 31 March 2016, 1380 patients were seen in the clinic. The number of patients discharged following consultant virtual review was 855 (62%). The positive predictive value of onward referrals was 84%. Three of the 82 patients brought back for face-to-face review were deemed to require treatment, equating to negative predictive value of 96%.ConclusionsOur technician-delivered glaucoma referral triaging clinic incorporates consultant 'virtual review' to provide a service model that significantly reduces the number of onward referrals into the glaucoma outpatient department. This model may be an alternative to departments where there are difficulties in implementing optometrist-led community-based referral refinement schemes.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives of locally commissioned enhanced optometric services

OBJECTIVES

To explore views of all stakeholders (patients, optometrists, general practitioners (GPs), commissioners and ophthalmologists) regarding the operation of community-based enhanced optometric services.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using mixed methods (patient satisfaction surveys, semi-structured telephone interviews and optometrist focus groups).

SETTING

A minor eye conditions scheme (MECS) and glaucoma referral refinement scheme (GRRS) provided by accredited community optometrists.

PARTICIPANTS

189 patients, 25 community optometrists, 4 glaucoma specialist hospital optometrists (GRRS), 5 ophthalmologists, 6 GPs (MECS), 4 commissioners.

RESULTS

Overall, 99% (GRRS) and 100% (MECS) patients were satisfied with their optometrists' examination. The vast majority rated the following as 'very good'; examination duration, optometrists' listening skills, explanations of tests and management, patient involvement in decision-making, treating the patient with care and concern. 99% of MECS patients would recommend the service. Manchester optometrists were enthusiastic about GRRS, feeling fortunate to practise in a 'pro-optometry' area. No major negatives were reported, although both schemes were limited to patients resident within certain postcode areas, and some inappropriate GP referrals occurred (MECS). Communication with hospitals was praised in GRRS but was variable, depending on hospital (MECS). Training for both schemes was valuable and appropriate but should be ongoing. MECS GPs were very supportive, reporting the scheme would reduce secondary care referral numbers, although some MECS patients were referred back to GPs for medication. Ophthalmologists (MECS and GRRS) expressed very positive views and widely acknowledged that these new care pathways would reduce unnecessary referrals and shorten patient waiting times. Commissioners felt both schemes met or exceeded expectations in terms of quality of care, allowing patients to be seen quicker and more efficiently.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally commissioned schemes can be a positive experience for all involved. With appropriate training, clear referral pathways and good communication, community optometrists can offer high-quality services that are highly acceptable to patients, health professionals and commissioners.

Evaluation of a minor eye conditions scheme delivered by community optometrists

BACKGROUND

The establishment of minor eye conditions schemes (MECS) within community optometric practices provides a mechanism for the timely assessment of patients presenting with a range of acute eye conditions. This has the potential to reduce waiting times and avoid unnecessary referrals to hospital eye services (HES).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, impact on hospital attendances and patient satisfaction with a minor eye service provided by community optometrists.

METHODS

Activity and outcome data were collected for 12 months in the Lambeth and Lewisham MECS. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was given to patients at the end of their MECS appointment. A retrospective difference-in-differences analysis of hospital activity compared changes in the volume of referrals by general practitioners (GPs) from a period before (April 2011-March 2013) to after (April 2013-March 2015) the introduction of the scheme in Lambeth and Lewisham relative to a neighbouring area (Southwark) where the scheme had not been commissioned. Appropriateness of case management was assessed by consensus using clinical members of the research team.

RESULTS

A total of 2123 patients accessed the scheme. Approximately two-thirds of patients (67.5%) were referred by their GP. The commonest reasons for patients attending for a MECS assessment were 'red eye' (36.7% of patients), 'painful white eye' (11.1%) and 'flashes and floaters' (10.2%). A total of 64.1% of patients were managed in optometric practice and 18.9% were referred to the HES; of these, 89.2% had been appropriately referred. First attendances to HES referred by GPs reduced by 26.8% (95% CI -40.5% to -13.1%) in Lambeth and Lewisham compared to Southwark.

CONCLUSIONS

The Lambeth and Lewisham MECS demonstrates clinical effectiveness, reduction in hospital attendances and high patient satisfaction and represents a successful collaboration between commissioners, local HES units and primary healthcare providers.

A view on glaucoma--are we seeing it clearly?

Successful clinical management of glaucoma should not simply be about control of intraocular pressure, but must equate to correct decisions about intensifying treatment when patients are at risk of developing 'visual disability'. Yet little is known about what visual field defects, at different stages of glaucoma, specifically affect patients' abilities to perform everyday visual tasks. One way to do this is to measure patient performance in tasks in a lab setting. Another way is to ask patients themselves. The latter can be revealing and demystify views about how patients perceive the world. This short commentary highlights some of the current research in this area.

The design and implementation of a study to investigate the effectiveness of community vs hospital eye service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease

Introduction

Standard treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF drugs. Following multiple injections, nAMD lesions often become quiescent but there is a high risk of reactivation, and regular review by hospital ophthalmologists is the norm. The present trial examines the feasibility of community optometrists making lesion reactivation decisions.

Methods

The Effectiveness of Community vs Hospital Eye Service (ECHoES) trial is a virtual trial; lesion reactivation decisions were made about vignettes that comprised clinical data, colour fundus photographs, and optical coherence tomograms displayed on a web-based platform. Participants were either hospital ophthalmologists or community optometrists. All participants were provided with webinar training on the disease, its management, and assessment of the retinal imaging outputs. In a balanced design, 96 participants each assessed 42 vignettes; a total of 288 vignettes were assessed seven times by each professional group.

The primary outcome is a participant's judgement of lesion reactivation compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes are the frequency of sight threatening errors; judgements about specific lesion components; participant-rated confidence in their decisions about the primary outcome; cost effectiveness of follow-up by optometrists rather than ophthalmologists.

Discussion

This trial addresses an important question for the NHS, namely whether, with appropriate training, community optometrists can make retreatment decisions for patients with nAMD to the same standard as hospital ophthalmologists. The trial employed a novel approach as participation was entirely through a web-based application; the trial required very few resources compared with those that would have been needed for a conventional randomised controlled clinical trial.

Health professionals' and service users' perspectives of shared care for monitoring wet age-related macular degeneration: a qualitative study alongside the ECHoES trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of eye health professionals and service users on shared community and hospital care for wet or neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

METHOD

Using maximum variation sampling, 5 focus groups and 10 interviews were conducted with 23 service users and 24 eye health professionals from across the UK (consisting of 8 optometrists, 6 ophthalmologists, 6 commissioners, 2 public health representatives and 2 clinical eye care advisors to local Clinical Commissioning Groups). Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques derived from grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

The needs and preferences of those with nAMD appear to be at odds with the current service being provided. There was enthusiasm among health professionals and service users about the possibility of shared care for nAMD as it was felt to have the potential to relieve hospital eye service burden and represent a more patient-centred option, but there were a number of perceived barriers to implementation. Some service users and ophthalmologists voiced concerns about optometrist competency and the potential for delays with referrals to secondary care if stable nAMD became active again. The health professionals were divided as to whether shared care was financially more efficient than the current model of care. Specialist training for optometrists, under the supervision of ophthalmologists, was deemed to be the most effective method of training and was perceived to have the potential to improve the communication and trust that shared care would require.

CONCLUSIONS

While shared care is perceived to represent a promising model of nAMD care, voiced concerns suggest that there would need to be greater collaboration between ophthalmology and optometry, in terms of interprofessional trust and communication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN07479761.

Disease severity in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients with visual field loss: trends from more than a decade of data

PURPOSE

Large archives of visual field (VF) records from automated perimetry are used to examine severity of vision loss at diagnosis in glaucoma patients over a 13 year period in England.

METHODS

A total of 473 252 Humphrey VFs recorded at four regionally different glaucoma clinics in England were retrospectively examined. Patients were required to have a Humphrey mean deviation (MD) outside 95% normative limits in at least one eye and had at least two visits to the glaucoma clinic in a study period between the start of 1999 and the end of 2011. No other clinical data was considered. MD of the worse eye at the first hospital visit was used as an estimate of vision loss for a patient at diagnosis; proportion of patients categorised as having 'early' (better than -6 dB) or 'advanced' (worse than -12 dB) VF loss were also calculated. Simple linear regression of MD against the date of first visit was used to estimate changes in vision loss at diagnosis over time.

RESULTS

Median age, at the time of diagnosis, of the 25 521 patients included in the analysis was 67 (interquartile range 55-76) years. Average level of glaucoma vision loss at diagnosis, in those patients presenting to secondary care with a VF defect, improved by an average 0.11 dB per year over the study period (95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.13 dB per year; p < 0.0001). Percentage of patients with 'advanced' VF loss in at least one eye at diagnosis changed from 30% (1999-2001) to 21% in (2009-2011) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Severity of vision loss at the point of glaucoma detection, in those patients diagnosed with a VF defect, is improving over time in England. Nevertheless, the improvement is modest and large numbers of patients still present at glaucoma clinics with significant vision loss in at least one eye. Large scale digital VF data can be used to help monitor and audit health service delivery of glaucoma.