Primary Care Provider Familiarity and Compliance With Preferred Practice Patterns for Comprehensive Eye Examinations.

PURPOSE: To assess primary care practitioners' (PCPs) familiarity with American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern (PPP) guidelines on the frequency of comprehensive eye examinations (CEEs), and to explore their opinions and practices on counseling and referring patients for CEEs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Between February 1, 2019, and June 25, 2019, an anonymous survey was emailed to clinicians holding an MD, DO, PA, or NP degree, and residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the University of Oklahoma. Descriptive statistics of participants' responses were reported. RESULTS: Regarding patient counseling on CEEs, 15.4% of PCPs reported "always," 48.1% "usually," and 36.5% "seldom" or "never" doing so. Few PCPs (11.1%) reported being able to describe the guidelines, and 63.9% were unaware of their existence. A strong majority of PCPs (90.7%) correctly referred a type 2 diabetic patient at their time of diagnosis, but a similar majority (77.8%) prematurely referred a newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic patient. One in 7 PCPs (13.4%) would refer a patient with family history of glaucoma only upon developing visual/ocular symptoms. Compared to other providers, PAs/NPs were more likely to recommend unnecessary CEEs for low-risk individuals (P = .009), whereas residents counseled patients less frequently (P = .003), were less likely to be familiar with PPP guidelines (P = .026), and were less likely to recommend appropriate follow-ups for patients with family history of glaucoma (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' awareness of and familiarity with AAO CEE guidelines is variable and improves with provider age and experience. Efforts to improve PCP guideline awareness may be especially well suited to residents and mid-level practitioners.

Active Learning to Characterize the Full Contrast Sensitivity Function in Cataracts.

Background: To characterize contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in cataractous and pseudophakic eyes compared to healthy control eyes using a novel quantitative CSF test with active learning algorithms. Methods: This is a prospective observational study at an academic medical center. CSF was measured in eyes with visually significant cataract, at least 2+ nuclear sclerosis (NS) and visual acuity (VA) ≥ 20/50, in pseudophakic eyes and in healthy controls with no more than 1+ NS and no visual complaints, using the Manifold Contrast Vision Meter. Outcomes included Area under the Log CSF (AULCSF) and CS thresholds at 1, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). A subgroup analysis as performed on cataract eyes with VA ≥ 20/25. Results: A total of 167 eyes were included, 58 eyes in the cataract group, 77 controls, and 32 pseudophakic eyes with respective median AULCSF of 1.053 (0.352) vs 1.228 (0.318) vs 1.256 (0.360). In our multivariate regression model, cataract was associated with significantly reduced AULCSF (P= 0.04, ß= -0.11) and contrast threshold at 6 cpd (P= 0.01, ß= -0.16) compared to controls. Contrast threshold at 6 cpd was significantly reduced even in the subgroup of cataractous eyes with VA ≥ 20/25 (P=0.02, ß=-0.16). Conclusion: The novel qCSF test detected disproportionate significant contrast deficits at 6 cpd in cataract eyes; this remained significant even in the cataractous eyes with VA ≥ 20/25. CSF testing may enhance cataract evaluation and surgical decision-making, particularly in patients with subjective visual complaints despite good VA.

Optimization of cataract surgery follow-up: A standard set of questions can predict unexpected management changes at postoperative week one.

PURPOSE: There is limited evidence to inform the optimal follow-up schedule after cataract surgery. This study aims to determine whether a standardized question set can predict unexpected management changes (UMCs) at the postoperative week one (POW1) timepoint. SETTING: Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Two-hundred-and-fifty-four consecutive phacoemulsification cases having attended an examination between postoperative days 5-14. A set of 7 'Yes' or 'No' questions were administered to all participants by a technician at the POW1 visit. Patient answers along with perioperative patient information were recorded and analyzed. Outcomes were the incidence of UMCs at POW1. RESULTS: The incidence of UMCs was zero in uneventful cataract cases with unremarkable history and normal postoperative day one exam if no positive answers were given with the question set demonstrating 100% sensitivity (p<0.0001). A test version with 5 questions was equally sensitive in detecting UMCs at POW1 after cataract surgery. CONCLUSION: In routine cataract cases with no positive answers to the current set of clinical questions, a POW1 visit is unlikely to result in a management change. This result offers the opportunity for eye care providers to risk-stratify patients who have had cataract surgery and individualize follow-up.