This bleb grading system is reproducible clinically and photographically. High levels of agreement between scores for photographs versus slit lamp examination were found for most categories, with good interobserver agreement for both photograph and slit lamp grading. Further refinement of scoring and reference photographs is required for optimization, especially for grading of bleb morphology.

BackgroundThe prevalence of visual impairment (VI) and dementia increases with age and these conditions may coexist, but few UK data exist on VI among people with dementia.ObjectivesTo measure the prevalence of eye conditions causing VI in people with dementia and to identify/describe reasons for underdetection or inappropriate management.DesignStage 1 – cross-sectional prevalence study. Stage 2 – qualitative research exploring participant, carer and professional perspectives of eye care.SettingStage 1 – 20 NHS sites in six English regions. Stage 2 – six English regions.ParticipantsStage 1 – 708 participants with dementia (aged 60–89 years): 389 lived in the community (group 1) and 319 lived in care homes (group 2). Stage 2 – 119 participants.InterventionsStage 1 gathered eye examination data following domiciliary sight tests complying with General Ophthalmic Services requirements and professional guidelines. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE) test, and functional ability and behaviour were assessed using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale and Cambridge Behavioural Inventory – Revised. Stage 2 involved individual interviews (36 people with dementia and 11 care workers); and separate focus groups (34 optometrists; 38 family and professional carers).Main outcome measures.VI defined by visual acuity (VA) worse than 6/12 or worse than 6/18 measured before and after refraction.ResultsStage 1 – when participants wore their current spectacles, VI prevalence was 32.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28.7% to 36.5%] and 16.3% (95% CI 13.5% to 19.6%) for commonly used criteria for VI of VA worse than 6/12 and 6/18, respectively. Of those with VI, 44% (VA < 6/12) and 47% (VA < 6/18) were correctable with new spectacles. Almost 50% of remaining uncorrectable VI (VA < 6/12) was associated with cataract, and was, therefore, potentially remediable, and one-third was associated with macular degeneration. Uncorrected/undercorrected VI prevalence (VA < 6/12) was significantly higher in participants in care homes (odds ratio 2.19, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.73;p < 0.01) when adjusted for age, sex and sMMSE score. VA could not be measured in 2.6% of group 1 and 34.2% of group 2 participants (p < 0.01). The main eye examination elements (excluding visual fields) could be performed in > 80% of participants. There was no evidence that the management of VI in people with dementia differed from that in older people in general. Exploratory analysis suggested significant deficits in some vision-related aspects of function and behaviour in participants with VI. Stage 2 key messages – carers and care workers underestimated how much can be achieved in an eye examination. People with dementia and carers were unaware of domiciliary sight test availability. Improved communication is needed between optometrists and carers; optometrists should be informed of the person’s dementia. Tailoring eye examinations to individual needs includes allowing extra time. Optometrists wanted training and guidance about dementia. Correcting VI may improve the quality of life of people with dementia but should be weighed against the risks and burdens of undergoing examinations and cataract surgery on an individual basis.LimitationsSampling bias is possible owing to quota-sampling and response bias.ConclusionsThe prevalence of VI is disproportionately higher in people with dementia living in care homes. Almost 50% of presenting VI is correctable with spectacles, and more with cataract surgery. Areas for future research are the development of an eye-care pathway for people with dementia; assessment of the benefits of early cataract surgery; and research into the feasibility of specialist optometrists for older people.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The goals of this paper are to review techniques for measuring clinical practice within healthcare professions and to discuss possible applications of these techniques to primary care optometry. A review of the literature suggests a lack of systematic research investigating standards of clinical practice within optometry. It is argued that evidence-based research to determine the content of typical optometric eye examinations would be valuable for several reasons: to evaluate the service provided to the public by the profession; setting priorities and assessing the outcomes of continuous education and training; to influence governmental and professional policy decisions; National Health Service General Ophthalmic Services issues; the equitable management of clinicolegal matters and consumer complaints; setting appropriate professional guidelines and developing undergraduate training. Evidence-based studies within other healthcare professions have evaluated the content of clinical consultations. The literature reviewed reveals three main approaches: (1) abstraction of medical records, (2) use of clinical vignettes and (3) use of standardized patients (SPs) who present unannounced to clinics. In this review, we compare and contrast the use of these different methods in assessing the content of clinical consultations. It is clear from the literature reviewed that the use of SPs is the Ôgold standardÕ methodology. Clinical vignettes can also provide useful data, especially if computerized.

No abstract

SP encounters are an effective way of measuring clinical care within optometry and should be considered for further comparative measurements of quality of care. As in research using SPs in other healthcare disciplines, our study has highlighted substantial differences between different practitioners in the duration and depth of their clinical investigations. This highlights the fact that not all eye examinations are the same and that there is no such thing as a 'standard sight test'. We recommend that future optometric continuing education could usefully focus on migraine diagnosis and assessment.

Background: A recent review found standardised patient (SP) methodology to be the gold standard method for evaluating clinical care. Alternative methods include record abstraction and computerised clinical vignettes. SPs were compared to clinical records and to computerised vignettes in order to assess whether record abstraction and vignettes are accurate measures of clinical care provided within optometry. Methods: A total of 111 community optometrists in the south east of the UK consented to be visited by unannounced actors for an eye examination. The SPs received extensive training to enable accurate reporting of the content of the eye examinations using checklists. Clinical records were requested from optometrists who chose to receive feedback following the SP visits. The SP checklists were used as a guide to extract relevant information from the clinical records. An opportunity was made available to all UK qualified optometrists, through publicity in the College of OptometristsÕ monthly newsletter, the Association of OptometristsÕ monthly newsletter (Blink) and the UK optometry e-mail discussion list to complete three computerised clinical vignettes by performing a virtual eye examination using an on-line optometric record card. The average differences were calculated between the record abstraction and vignette results compared to the standardised patient encounter findings for different domains of an eye examination. Chi-square analyses were performed on the tests which were of the greatest clinical significance for each scenario. Results: The average overall difference for information gathered from record abstraction compared to the standardised patient encounter ranged from +2 to )26% (positive values indicate items that were recorded on the clinical records but not reported by the SP). For history and symptoms, the average difference ranged from )9 to )26%; for the proportion of tests performed during the examination this value ranged from +2 to )24% and for management issues the difference ranged from )1 to )4%. The average overall difference for the vignette data compared to the standardised patient encounter ranged from 0 to +26% (positive values indicate items that were not carried out in a clinical setting, as recorded by the SP, but were described by optometrists who completed the vignette as tests they would have carried out). For history and symptoms, the average difference for the vignette data ranged from +2 to +26%; from 0 to +20% for tests performed during the eye examination and from 0 to +11% for management. Conclusion: Different methods of measuring clinical care capture different elements of clinical practice and are prone to different biases. This three-way comparison indicates that clinical records tend to under-estimate actual care provided, while vignette scores tend to over-estimate clinical performance. Low participation rates mean that the participating optometrists could be described as a Ôself-selected sampleÕ. This is a limitation of the research and the conclusions sho...

Purpose In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES. Methods Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De‐identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. Results A total of 459 de‐identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%–8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%–76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%–49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%–62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%–21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%–97% and were accurate in 81%–98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%–97% and was meaningful in 94%–99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR. Conclusions In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

The agreement between our data and the results of other similar studies support the conclusions that subjective refractive findings are reproducible to approximately +/-0.75 D when performed by multiple optometrists in patients of different age groups and levels of ametropia. SPs are an effective way of measuring reproducibility of refractive error and should be considered for further comparative analysis in different age groups and different levels of ametropia.