Developing realistic benchmarks for glaucoma care delivery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Realistic benchmarks can serve as comparators for optometrists wishing to engage in clinical practice audits of their glaucoma care. BACKGROUND: The iCareTrack study established the appropriateness of glaucoma care delivery through clinical record audits of Australian optometry practices. Benchmarks required for monitoring and improving glaucoma care delivery do not exist. This study developed realistic benchmarks for glaucoma care and then benchmarked the performance of practices from the iCareTrack study to establish aspects of care that warrant attention from quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Benchmarks were developed from the pre-existing iCareTrack dataset using the Achievable Benchmarks of Care (ABC) method. The iCareTrack study had audited the appropriateness of glaucoma care delivery against 37 clinical indicators for 420 randomly sampled glaucoma patient records from 42 Australian optometry practices. The four-step ABC method calculates benchmarks based on the top 10% of best-performing practices adjusted for low patient encounter numbers. iCareTrack results were compared to the benchmarks to explore the distribution of practices that were at, above or below benchmark. RESULTS: Benchmarks were developed for 34 of 37 iCareTrack indicators. For 26 (of 34) indicators, the benchmarks were at or above 90% appropriateness. The benchmarks for 14 (of 34) iCareTrack indicators were met by more than 80% of eligible practices, indicating excellent performance. Some aspects of glaucoma care such as peripheral anterior angle assessment, applanation tonometry, and visual field assessment appeared to be delivered sub-optimally by optometrists when compared to the benchmarks. CONCLUSION: This study established benchmarks for glaucoma care delivery in optometry practices that reflect realistic and top achievable performance. The large number of indicators with benchmarks above 90% confirmed that glaucoma care can and should be delivered by optometrists at very high levels of appropriateness. Benchmarking identified pockets of sub-optimal performance that can now be targeted by quality improvement initiatives.

Building and maintaining interprofessional collaborative practice in eyecare: Learnings from the Queensland Paediatric Optometry Alignment Program.

PURPOSE: The Queensland Children's Hospital Paediatric Optometry Alignment Program commenced with a pilot phase to assess its feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability. This study identified the barriers that hinder effective interprofessional collaboration and the facilitators that contribute to its success, and assessed changes in optometrists' satisfaction since the pilot phase of the collaborative care programme. METHODS: Qualitative deductive and inductive content analysis was applied to open-ended free-text survey responses collected in 2018 from the optometrists involved in the Program's pilot phase. The responses were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to categorise barriers and facilitators into key themes. Key behavioural determinants were mapped to the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) elements of the Behaviour Change Wheel model to identify intervention strategies. Intervention recommendations were derived from behaviour change mapping and compared with programme quality improvement initiatives. A cross-sectional explanatory survey informed by the TDF was conducted within the current 2023 cohort, and a longitudinal comparative analysis was carried out using data from the 2018 survey. RESULTS: Among the 97 surveys distributed in 2018, 44 respondents participated; from this group, 38 individuals contributed a total of 200 free-text responses. Facilitators (240 comments) outnumbered barriers (65 comments). Key facilitators were accessible and timely care, professional development, confidence and positive outcome beliefs. Barriers included communication, information handover, credibility, relationships and skill gaps. Optometrists actively engaged in the programme in 2023 reported heightened satisfaction with their involvement, increased confidence and greater engagement in paediatric eyecare delivery. However, challenges in clinical information transfer persist. CONCLUSION: The interprofessional collaborative model of paediatric eyecare has contributed efficiencies within the health system by building paediatric care capacity in the community, fostering professional credibility and promoting interdisciplinary trust. Insights gained should prove valuable for other paediatric eyecare services exploring hospital-to-community care models.

Clinical indicators for diabetic eyecare delivered by optometrists in Australia: a Delphi study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Valid and updated clinical indicators can serve as important tools in assessing and improving eyecare delivery. BACKGROUND: Indicators for diabetic eyecare in Australia were previously developed from guidelines published before 2013 and then used to assess the appropriateness of care delivery through a nationwide patient record card audit (the iCareTrack study). To reflect emerging evidence and contemporary practice, this study aimed to update clinical indicators for optometric care for people with type 2 diabetes in Australia. METHODS: Forty-five candidate indicators, including existing iCareTrack and new indicators derived from nine high-quality evidence-based guidelines, were generated. A two-round modified Delphi process where expert panel members rated the impact, acceptability, and feasibility of the indicators on a 9-point scale and voted for inclusion or exclusion of the candidate indicators was used. Consensus on inclusion was reached when the median scores for impact, acceptability, and feasibility were ≥7 and >75% of experts voted for inclusion. RESULTS: Thirty-two clinical indicators with high acceptability, impact and feasibility ratings (all median scores: 9) were developed. The final indicators were related to history taking (n = 12), physical examination (n = 8), recall period (n = 5), referral (n = 5), and patient education/communication (n = 2). Most (14 of 15) iCareTrack indicators were retained either in the original format or with modifications. New indicators included documenting the type of diabetes, serum lipid level, pregnancy, systemic medications, nephropathy, Indigenous status, general practitioner details, pupil examination, intraocular pressure, optical coherence tomography, diabetic retinopathy grading, recall period for high-risk diabetic patients without retinopathy, referral of high-risk proliferative retinopathy, communication with the general practitioner, and patient education. CONCLUSION: A set of 32 updated diabetic eyecare clinical indicators was developed based on contemporary evidence and expert consensus. These updated indicators inform the development of programs to assess and enhance the eyecare delivery for people with diabetes in Australia.

Enhancing the appropriateness of eyecare delivery: the iCaretrack approach.

Optometrists play an integral role in primary eyecare services, including prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute and chronic eye conditions. Therefore, it remains essential that the care they provide be timely and appropriate to ensure the best patient outcomes and optimal utilisation of resources. However, optometrists continuously face many challenges that can affect their ability to provide appropriate care (i.e., the care in line with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines). To address any resulting evidence-to-practice gaps, programs are needed that support and enable optometrists to adopt and utilise the best evidence in clinical practice. Implementation science is a field of research that can be applied to improving the adoption and maintenance of evidence-based practices in routine care, through systematic development and application of strategies or interventions to address barriers to evidence-based practice. This paper demonstrates an approach using implementation science to enhance optometric eyecare delivery. A brief overview of the methods used to identify existing gaps in appropriate eyecare delivery is presented. An outline of the process used to understand the behavioural barriers responsible for such gaps follows, involving theoretical models and frameworks. The resulting development of an online program for optometrists to enhance their capability, motivation, and opportunity to provide evidence-based eyecare is described, using the Behaviour Change Model and co-design methods. The importance of and methods used in evaluating such programs are also discussed. Finally, reflections on the experience and key learnings from the project are shared. While the paper focuses on experiences in improving glaucoma and diabetic eyecare in the Australian optometry context, this approach can be adapted to other conditions and contexts.

Level of appropriate primary diabetic eyecare delivered and achievable in optometry practices in Australia.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current levels of appropriateness for primary diabetic eyecare delivered by Australian optometrists are presented along with realistic targets (benchmarks) for quality improvement. The demonstrated methods can be used in practice evaluation and benchmarking of other clinical practice areas and settings. BACKGROUND: To examine the appropriateness of diabetic eye-care delivery and establish achievable benchmarks of care (ABCs) for optometry practices in Australia. METHOD: In a retrospective audit, clinical records of patients with type-II diabetes obtained from a randomly selected nationally representative sample of optometry practices were assessed against evidence-based clinical indicators. Appropriate care is defined as care delivered in compliance with the indicators. The ABC for each indicator was calculated as the average performance for the top 10% of optometry practices after Bayesian adjustment to account for a low number of eligible records. RESULTS: The audit of 420 randomly selected patient records from 42 practices against 12 clinical indicators showed an overall appropriateness of 69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66%, 73%) for overall diabetic eye care. While a high level of appropriateness was identified for recall period (93%, 95% CI 85%, 100%) and referral (100%, 95% CI 38%, 100%), larger gaps existed in history taking (46%, 95% CI 44%, 52%), dilated fundus examination (80%, 95% CI 76%, 84%) and iris examination (0%, 95% CI 0%, 56%). The ABCs for 8 of 12 indicators were 100%, and the remaining three indicators had ABCs above 80%. An ABC for the iris examination indicator could not be calculated owing to the low number of eligible patient record cards. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a systematic process of practice evaluation and benchmarking in optometry practices. The diabetic eye care delivered by Australian optometrists was largely appropriate; however, improvement opportunities exist for history taking and physical examination. The ABCs demonstrate that excellence in primary diabetic eye care is attainable and will serve as an important tool in future initiatives to reduce the identified evidence-to-practice gaps.

The appropriateness of and barriers to glaucoma care delivery by Australian optometrists.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Establishing the level of appropriateness and barriers to glaucoma care delivery by Australian optometrists are important first steps in developing tailored interventions aimed at improving glaucoma care delivery. BACKGROUND: To determine the appropriateness of and barriers to glaucoma care by optometrists. METHODS: A mixed method study was conducted. Phase I was a retrospective cross-sectional medical record audit that assessed glaucoma care appropriateness against 37 clinical indicators from a nationally representative sample of 42 optometry practices. In Phase II, focus groups and interviews involving 31 optometrists explored audit findings to identify barriers to appropriate glaucoma care. Barriers were analysed by deductive and inductive qualitative analysis. Saliency analysis was used to identify key domains that influence glaucoma care. RESULTS: Appropriate glaucoma care was delivered for 63% (95% CI 61%, 64%) of the 420 patient encounters audited. Appropriate care was delivered above 80% for most (57%) indicators, while 14 (38%) indicators were delivered below 60% appropriateness. Good compliance to appropriate care was noted for key indicators of intraocular pressure measurement (90%, 95% CI 87%, 93%) and optic nerve head/retinal nerve fibre layer imaging (78%, 95% CI 74%, 82%). Important barriers identified were beliefs about expected outcomes, lack of perceived relevancy, time constraints, poor organisational culture, knowledge gaps, focusing on some aspects of glaucoma care to the detriment of others, the complexity of glaucoma care, information recall, and social norms. CONCLUSION: Glaucoma care was appropriate in most patient encounters, with opportunity to improve some aspects of history taking and physical examinations. Barriers to glaucoma care were diverse, existing at both the practitioner and organisational levels. These findings provide direction for the development of a tailored improvement intervention.

Multiple things going on at the same time: determinants of appropriate primary diabetic eyecare delivery.

PURPOSE: A recent nationwide medical record audit of optometry practices has identified an evidence-to-practice gap in primary diabetic eyecare delivery. This study aimed to explore the determinants (barriers and enablers) to appropriate diabetic eyecare delivery in Australia. METHODS: A qualitative study involving focus-group discussions and interviews of a purposeful sample of Australian optometrists was conducted. Participants were asked about the perceived barriers to adherence to four underperforming clinical indicators related to primary diabetic eyecare identified by the recent national optometry practice audit. The Theoretical Domain Framework was used for thematic analysis and coding salience to identify key behavioural determinants. RESULTS: Optometrists participated in eight focus groups (n = 27) and individual interviews (n = 4). The most salient barriers were related to Environmental resources (e.g., limited chair time); Beliefs about consequences (e.g., lack of perceived importance); Knowledge (e.g., poor understanding); Professional role/identity (e.g., the perceived role of optometry in care process); Social influences (e.g., the influence of senior optometrists) and Intentions (e.g., apathy). Key enablers were Environmental resources (e.g., electronic record system and practice aids); Knowledge (e.g., keeping up with knowledge/professional development); reinforcements (e.g., fear of legal actions) and behavioural regulations (e.g., self-monitoring/audit). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the evidence-to-practice gap in primary diabetic eyecare delivery in Australia can be attributed in part to several interconnected factors related to optometrists' individual capability and motivation as well as the social and practice environment within which they sit. These behavioural determinants will inform the design of an intervention to improve the appropriateness of primary diabetic eyecare delivery.

Systematic review of diabetic eye disease practice guidelines: more applicability, transparency and development rigor are needed.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic search of diabetic eye disease guidelines was conducted on six online databases and guideline repositories. Four reviewers independently rated quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Aggregate scores (%) for six domains and overall quality assessment were calculated. A "good quality" guideline was one with ≥60% score for "rigor of development" and in at least two other domains. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were evidence-based guidelines (involved systematic search and grading of evidence). The median scores (interquartile range (IQR)) for "scope and purpose," "stakeholder involvement," "rigor of development," "clarity of presentation," "applicability" and "editorial independence" were 73.6% (54.2%-80.6%), 48.6% (29.2%-71.5%), 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), 86.6% (76.7%-94.4%), 28.6% (18.0%-37.8%) and 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), respectively. The median overall score (out of 7) of all guidelines was 5.1 (IQR: 3.7-5.8). Evidence-based guidelines scored significantly higher compared to expert-consensus guidelines. Half (n = 9) of the guidelines (all evidence-based) were of "good quality." CONCLUSION: A wide variation in methodological quality exists among diabetic eyecare guidelines, with nine demonstrating "good quality." Future iterations of guidelines could improve by appropriately engaging stakeholders, following a rigorous development process, including support for application in clinical practice and ensuring editorial transparency.

Knowledge translation for the everyday optometrist.

A gap exists between best evidence and actual clinical care provided to patients. The advent of evidence-based practice was meant to address this gap by providing practitioners with a method to search, evaluate and incorporate evidence into practice. However, the gap continues to exist. The health research fields of knowledge translation and implementation science have evolved over the last few decades to assist practitioners in embedding research findings and best evidence into routine practice. Knowledge translation seeks to improve public health outcomes by facilitating the movement of best evidence from the bench to clinical practice. Implementation science is the study of methods to integrate research findings and evidence-based practice into routine practice. This literature review aims to revisit the concepts of evidence-based practice and to introduce knowledge translation and implementation science by exploring their roles and influences in the delivery of appropriate glaucoma care by optometrists.

Quality of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetic retinopathy.

Clinical relevance: Understanding the quality of the commonly used clinical practice guidelines can help busy clinicians in selecting appropriate guidelines for evidence-based eye care for people with diabetes.Background: The National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) clinical practice guideline on diabetic retinopathy management has been widely used locally and internationally for over 10 years. However, the quality of this guideline has never been formally assessed. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality of the NHMRC guideline and compare it against other international guidelines.Methods: The 2008 NHMRC and another five established diabetic retinopathy management international guidelines (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 2017; American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2019; American Optometric Association, 2019; Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK, 2013, and Canadian Ophthalmologic Society, 2012) were examined using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Scoring by four independent reviewers was aggregated into six domain and overall rating scores. Consistency among the reviewers was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: The AGREE II domain scores for the NHMRC guideline were: scope and purpose 72%, stakeholder involvement 64%, rigour of development 77%, clarity of presentation 96%, applicability 35%, and editorial independence 15%. The NHMRC guideline's overall score (5.3 of 7) was lower than that of most other guidelines. Compared to others, the NHMRC guideline scored well in clarity of presentation and rigour of development, but less well for editorial independence. The NHMRC guideline was the least current and a need to update it was recognised by all reviewers who identified key areas for improvement.Conclusion: The quality of the NHMRC guideline was comparable to most other established international guidelines. Several areas of strengths and weaknesses in this guideline were identified. Future updates should aim to improve transparency in development and applicability in clinical practice.

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of eye care by optometrists: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based practice is fundamental to providing quality care, patient satisfaction and judicious use of limited healthcare resources. However, variability in evidence-based eye care delivery has been reported. Given the important role of optometrists in delivering primary eye care, a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to providing optometric care is required. This systematic review aimed to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) of eye care delivery by optometrists and interventions that may improve eye care delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting barriers and facilitators to eye care delivery published between 1999 and 2020. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to analyse data (quotations, interpretive summaries, survey result) with barriers and facilitators coded to one or more of the 14 domains, and used to identify the key behavioural domains influencing eye care delivery based on frequency of coding, elaboration and stated importance in the study. Influential domains were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to improve eye care delivery. Of the 802 studies retrieved from the search, 30 were included. Frequently identified barriers were time constraints, resources and equipment issues, patient factors, lack of awareness, skill proficiency deficits and negative attitudes and beliefs. Frequently identified facilitators were adequate time, resources and equipment, education, skill proficiency and understanding the relevancy of the eye care provided. The key TDF domains influencing eye care delivery were 'environmental context and resources' (time, resources, equipment issues, patient factors), 'knowledge' (awareness issues), 'skills' (skills proficiency) and 'belief about consequences' (beliefs and relevancy). Intervention functions that may improve eye care delivery were education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion and modelling. SUMMARY: The barriers and facilitators identified in this review were diverse and located at both the practitioner and organisational levels. Four TDF domains were found to be influential determinants of eye care practice. Intervention functions identified in this study can be used to improve the appropriateness of primary eye care delivery.

Quality of 2019 American optometric association clinical practice guideline for diabetic eye care.

PURPOSE: The 2019 American Optometric Association (AOA) clinical practice guideline intends to assist optometrists in providing evidence-based eye care for people with diabetes. This technical report evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the guideline. METHODS: Four independent reviewers appraised the 2014 and 2019 versions of the AOA's guideline using the AGREE II instrument. Average scaled scores across the six domains of the AGREE II and an overall independent score were calculated based on the formula provided. RESULTS: The 2019 guideline scored high (range: 75-93%) in all domains except for the domain of applicability (34%). In the domain of rigour of development, significant improvements were noted in the 2019 guideline (median score: 7.0, interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-7.0) compared to the 2014 guideline (median: 5.0, IQR: 4.0-6.0) (p < 0.0001). The appraisal of the guideline also identified room for further improvements, especially in relation to implementing the guideline. CONCLUSION: The overall and domain specific quality of the AOA 2019 guideline was high, however, improvement in its applicability domain is required. The findings of this study will aid uptake of the guideline and inform improvement efforts for other international optometric guidelines.