No abstract

Many patients seen in the British hospital eye service are referred by high-street optometrists; and, if the optometrist is to receive feedback from the ophthalmologist, the patient should consent to disclosure of medical information. On the referral form (revised GOS 18) there is a space for this purpose. We investigated the level of communication by asking optometrists in our hospital catchment area about their use of the GOS 18 form and by examining the medical records of all new patients seen in the eye outpatient department in one month.79 optometrists (55%) returned the questionnaire. 54 routinely used the GOS 18; and, of these, 10 said they obtained patient consent always, 23 sometimes and 21 never. 158 of 555 sets of medical notes contained an optometrist's referral, 107 of them on the revised GOS 18; and patient consent had been recorded on 17 of these forms. Ophthalmologists responded to the optometrist in 2/17 (12%) cases where consent had been obtained and 15/90 (17%) where it had not.Ophthalmologists could provide much better feedback to optometrists. The GOS 18 form could be used more effectively; and there is no reason why patient consent to disclosure of medical information should not be obtained by ophthalmologists as well as by optometrists.

No abstract

Objectives (1) To test the consistency and ease with which number-plates of different component figures can be read under DVLA driving test conditions; (2) to test the relative difficulty of reading corresponding figures on registration plates of white and yellow backgrounds. Design Prospective study of consecutive eligible clinic patients. Setting Ophthalmology outpatients. Subjects 210 individuals with a corrected visual acuity with both eyes open of between 6/9 and 6/12. Main outcome measures The ability to read three different number-plates under standard DVLA driving-test conditions (ie at 20.5 m in good daylight with glasses if worn) and the ability to read identical number-plates against a white and a yellow background. Results There is a significant difference between the ease with which three different number-plates can be read depending on their letter and numeral composition, although this did not seem to be significantly affected by whether they were printed on a yellow or white background. Only 92.3% of subjects could read all the number-plates at the legal distance, 96.7% could read at least one number-plate at the legal distance and 3.3% of the test subjects could not read any of the number-plates at 20.5 m. Conclusions The current test protocol used to obtain a driving licence and, moreover, the test the police will employ to assess visual competence to drive, is highly variable and is unlikely to give consistent repeatable results. The performance of those with equally good visual acuity is unpredictable and is highly dependent on the number-plate they are asked to read. This variability could exclude some who would otherwise pass the test or pass an individual with a visual acuity below accepted standards. The forthcoming changes in the regulations for design of number-plates is an ideal opportunity to standardise the whole testing procedure for driving visual acuity.

No abstract