The results of the screening of 3318 diabetic patients for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in three UK centres are reported. The aims of the study were to determine the extent of diabetic retinopathy in the screened population and to assess the relative effectiveness of different screening methods in appropriately referring cases from a diabetic population, in a context very close to a routine clinical service. Patients were assessed by ophthalmoscopic examination by an ophthalmological clinical assistant. The clinical assistants' referral grades formed the reference standard against which to assess the effectiveness of other screening methods including ophthalmoscopy by primary screeners who were general practitioners (GPs), ophthalmic opticians and hospital physicians, and the assessment by consultant ophthalmologists of non-mydriatic Polaroid fundus photography. The performance of primary screeners based on ophthalmoscopy ranged from a sensitivity of 0.41, with a specificity of 0.89, for one of the GP groups, to a sensitivity of 0.67, with a specificity of 0.96, for the hospital physician group. The performance of the non-mydriatic camera ranged from a sensitivity of 0.35, with a specificity of 0.95, to a sensitivity of 0.67, with a specificity of 0.98.

Provision of integrated care arrangements for the diabetic foot has a positive impact on primary care staffs' knowledge and patients' attitudes resulting in an increased number of appropriate referrals to acute specialist services.

Westcott R, Sweeney G and Stead J. Significant event audit in practice: a preliminary study. Family Practice 2000; 17: 173-179. Background. While well described and promoted as a useful activity, there remains a paucity of evidence on the process and experience of significant event audit (SEA) in primary care. To date, the most comprehensive evaluation of the process has been produced by comparing SEA with conventional audit. The current study intends to contribute to the debate by examining the attitudes and perceptions of a range of primary care staff who have been involved in the process.Objectives. The aim of this study was to identify participants' perceptions of the benefits and problems associated with SEA in the context of primary care, and to derive suggestions which might improve the process of SEA.Methods. Semi-structured interviews of 12 participants from a variety of primary care disciplines were conducted, using grounded theory to analyse the results. Results.A set of six perceptions and seven recommendations for the facilitation of SEA were produced.Conclusions. SEA constitutes a powerful tool, which can contribute to team building, enhanced communication and improved patient care, and represents a vital contributor to the development of clinical governance in primary care. However, its implementation and sustenance require sensitive handling for optimal benefit and to minimize difficulties. Our research has enabled us to propose suggestions to facilitate these processes.

This paper describes a general practice based diabetic retinopathy screening service employing a technician trained in direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy and taking photographs with a Canon CR3 45 NM non-mydriatic polaroid camera analysed by a consultant ophthalmologist to provide a comparison with the screener's opinion. Prospective data is presented from the first 1050 patients screened for diabetic retinopathy in the Exeter Health Authority area. Analysis of data collected showed a prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the screened population of 27%, 14% previously undetected with a 0.5% prevalence of sight-threatening retinopathy. There was almost complete agreement between ophthalmoscopy findings and the consultant analysis of photographs. Screening costs were calculated at 10.38 pounds per patient screened. A specially trained non-medically qualified technician can provide a good quality cost-effective screening service for diabetic retinopathy within a primary care setting.

The study's objective was to determine the effectiveness of a joint NHS/Social Services rehabilitation unit (a form of intermediate care) for older people on discharge from community hospital, compared with 'usual' community services. This was a controlled clinical trial in a practice setting. The intervention was 6 weeks in a rehabilitation unit where individuals worked with care/rehabilitation assistants and occupational therapists to regain independence. Controls went home with the health/social care services they would ordinarily receive. Participants were from two matched geographical areas in Devon: one with a rehabilitation unit, one without. Recruitment was from January 1999 to October 2001 in 10 community hospitals. Study eligibility was assessed using the unit's inclusion/exclusion criteria: 55 years or older and 'likely to benefit from a short-term rehabilitation programme' ('potential to improve', 'realistic and achievable goals' and 'motivation to participate'). Ninety-four people were recruited to the intervention and 112 to the control. The mean (standard deviation) age was 81.8 (8.0) years. The main outcome measure was prevention of institutionalisation assessed by the number of days from baseline interview to admission to residential/nursing care or death ('survival-at-home time'). Secondary outcome measures were time to hospital re-admission over 12 months, quality of life and coping ability. There were no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure. Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for 'survival-at-home time' was 1.13 (0.70-1.84), and 0.84 (0.53-1.33) for 'time to hospital re-admission'. However, attending the unit was associated with earlier hospital discharge. Median (interquartile range) days in hospital for the intervention graph was 27 (20, 40), and for the control graph was 35 (22, 47) (U = 4234, P = 0.029). These findings suggest a stay in a rehabilitation unit is no more effective than 'usual' care at diverting older people from hospital/long-term care. Alternative service configurations may be as effective, having implications for tailoring services more specifically to individual need and/or user preferences. However, the unit did appear to facilitate earlier discharges from community hospital.