Worsening vision at age 4-5 in England post-COVID: Evidence from a large database of vision screening data.

PURPOSE: Myopia prevalence has increased in the UK at age 10-16y, but little is known about younger children. We hypothesise that if the 'myopia epidemic' is affecting young children, then there will be increasing rates of bilateral reduced unaided vision (V) at vision screenings of children 4-5 years of age. METHODS: Retrospective anonymised data from computerised vision screening at age 4-5 years were analysed from serial cross-sectional data. Refractive error is not assessed in UK vision screening, so vision was investigated. Data were only included from schools that screened every year from 2015/16 to 2021/22. The criterion used was unaided monocular logMAR (automated letter-by-letter scoring) vision >0.20 in both the right and left eyes, so as to maximise the chances of detecting bilateral, moderate myopia rather than amblyopia. RESULTS: Anonymised raw data were obtained for 359,634 screening episodes from 2075 schools. Once schools were excluded where data were not available for every year and data were cleaned, the final database comprised 110,076 episodes. The proportion (percentage and 95% CI) failing the criterion from 2015/16 to 2021/22 were 7.6 (7.2-8.0), 8.5 (8.1-8.9), 7.5 (7.1-7.9), 7.8 (7.4-8.2), 8.7 (8.1-9.2), 8.5 (7.9-9.0) and 9.3 (8.8-9.7), respectively. The slope of the regression line showed a trend for increasing rates of reduced bilateral unaided vision, consistent with increasing frequency of myopia (p = 0.06). A decreasing linear trendline was noted for children 'Under Professional Care'. CONCLUSIONS: For children 4-5 years of age, there were signs of reduced vision over the last 7 years in England. Consideration of the most likely causes support the hypothesis of increasing myopia. The increase in screening failures highlights the importance of eye care in this young population.

Referrals from community optometrists in England and their replies: A mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Community optometrists, through routine eye examinations, identify patients with disease or ocular abnormalities requiring referral to the Hospital Eye Service. In many cases no reply to the referral letter is received, resulting in some patients being re-referred unnecessarily, potentially increasing the number of other patients who lose sight whilst on hospital waiting lists. This study investigated, qualitatively and quantitatively, factors influencing optometric referrals and replies. METHODS: The three-phase, sequential mixed methods study started with a literature review and qualitative phase, interviewing stakeholders to identify issues for exploration in subsequent phases. The second, quantitative phase, undertook documentary analysis of 349 patient referral records from three optometric practice modalities (domiciliary, independently owned, and corporate chain) in England. A final qualitative phase obtained views from stakeholders to explore unexplained findings from the first two phases. RESULTS: Phase 1 identified communication, financial, professional and technological issues for further exploration. In Phase 2, the referral rate was 22.2% for domiciliary provider, 2.1% for independent practice and 2.5% for the corporate chain, with the variation most likely explained by patient age and associated ophthalmic disease, illness and disability. The referral reply rate was 5.7% for domiciliary provider, 25.0% for independent practice and 4.9% for the corporate chain. The community optometrist remained unaware of the outcome of their referral in 72.8% of cases. Qualitative analyses indicate the main factors influencing referral reply rates are technology, the General Medical Practitioner, community optometrists' utility to and utility of the National Health Service and patient mobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: The low referral reply rate creates a break in the feedback loop required to raise the standard of referrals and avoid unnecessary re-referral. Of the factors identified that influence referral reply rates, technology is key in view of the increasing use of online referral platforms. Feedback to the referring optometrist should be embedded in such systems.

Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in England.

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.

Healthy shopper? Blood pressure testing in a shopping centre Pop-Up in England.

BACKGROUND: Improving detection of elevated blood pressure (BP) remains a public health need. We present results from a Pop-Up health check stationed in shopping centres in England. We hypothesise the rate of case detection is related to measurable 'unhealthiness' of the shopping centres. METHODS: A Pop-Up health check was sited in four and three shopping centres sampled from the top ten unhealthiest and top 15 healthiest shopping regions respectively, following a report ranking towns/cities based on their unhealthy and healthy retail outlets. On one day in each shopping centre, people were approached and consented to BP testing. Outcome measure was people flagged with BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg (cases). RESULTS: We detected 45 (22.6%) and 20 (13.1%) cases from testing 199 and 152 adults in the unhealthy and healthy locations respectively (relative risk 1.72; 95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 2.78). A measure of unhealthy retail outlets (e.g. fast-food outlets) within each shopping centre was associated with detection rate (R2 = 0.61; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: An association exists between cases of suspect hypertension found in a health check Pop-Up and measured 'unhealthiness' of the shopping centre site. Results hint at strategies for public testing of BP, potentially in the context of reducing health inequalities.

The relationship between unwarranted variation in optometric referrals and time since qualification.

PURPOSE: To investigate variation in optometric referral decision-making and the influence of experience and continuing education and training (CET). METHODS: To gain insight into unwarranted variation in referral activity in the United Kingdom (UK): (1) triage data were audited to investigate source of referral, provisional diagnosis, and outcome; (2) an online system was developed to present two sets of 10 vignettes, designed to avoid prompting answers. Participating optometrists completed 10 pre-CET vignettes, recording their tests and management decisions. The main group of participants chose whatever CET they wished over a 6-month period and then completed another 10 post-CET vignettes. A second group of newly-qualified optometrists completed the vignettes before and after a CET course intervention, followed by a third group of pre-registered optometrists with an intervention of 6-months experience of their pre-registration year. RESULTS: The audit identified 1951 optometric referrals and 158 optometrists (211 referrals were from general medical practitioners), with 122 of the 158 optometrists making fewer than ten referrals. Two newly-qualified optometrists generated 12.5% of the total referrals in the audit (N = 2162). Many suspect glaucoma referrals were based on a single suspect measurement resulting in a high discharge rate after community review, as did referrals for certain fundus-related appearances for which no treatment was indicated. The intervention of gaining CET points appeared to have no significant impact (p = 0.37) on referral decision-making, although this part of the study was underpowered. Self-selection bias was confirmed in the main group. When the main group and newly-qualified practitioners were compared, the number of referrals was negatively associated with time since qualification (p = 0.005). When all 20 referral decisions were compared, all optometrists referring more than 10 vignette patients came from a group of newly-qualified practitioners up to 2 years post-qualification. Pre-registered optometrists generally referred more appropriately than newly-qualified. Upon qualification, there was a significant increase in the number of sight tests undertaken per day (p = <0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Gaining CET points alone is unlikely to significantly improve referral decision-making. Mentoring and targeted CET for the newly-qualified up to 2 years post-qualification should be considered. Ophthalmology replies to the referring newly-qualified optometrist are vital for moderating future referrals and developing clinical confidence.

Effectiveness of UK optometric enhanced eye care services: a realist review of the literature.

PURPOSE: UK demographic and legislative changes combined with increasing burdens on National Health Service manpower and budgets have led to extended roles for community optometrists providing locally-commissioned enhanced optometric services (EOS). This realist review's objectives were to develop programme theories that implicitly or explicitly explain quality outcomes for eye care provided by optometrists via EOS and to test these theories by investigating the effectiveness of services for cataract, glaucoma, and primary eye care. METHODS: The review protocol was published on PROSPERO, and RAMESES publication standards were followed. Programme theories were formulated via scoping literature searches and expert consultation. The searching process involved all relevant electronic databases and grey literature, without restrictions on study design. Data synthesis focussed on questioning the integrity of each theory by considering supportive and refuting evidence from the source literature. RESULTS: Good evidence exists for cataract, glaucoma and primary eye care EOS that: with appropriate training, accredited optometrists manage patients commensurate with usual care standards; genuine partnerships can exist between community and hospital providers for cataract and glaucoma EOS; patient satisfaction with all three types of service is high; cost-effectiveness of services is unproven for cataract and primary eye care, while glaucoma EOS cost-effectiveness depends on service type; contextual factors may influence service success. CONCLUSIONS: The EOS reviewed are clinically effective and provide patient satisfaction but limited data is available on cost-effectiveness.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Technologies for Glaucoma Case-Finding in a Community Setting.

PURPOSE: To assess case-finding performance of the Frequency Doubling Technology Perimeter (FDT) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), Moorfields Motion Displacement Test (MMDT) (Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK), iVue optical coherence tomography (OCT) (Optovue Inc., Fremont, CA), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY), alone or combined, for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational, community-based study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 505 subjects aged ≥60 years recruited from a community setting using no predefined exclusion criteria. METHODS: Subjects underwent 4 index tests conducted by a technician unaware of subjects' ocular status. FDT and MMDT were used in suprathreshold mode. iVue OCT measured ganglion cell complex and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness. Reference standard was full ophthalmic examination by an experienced clinician who was masked to index test results. Subjects were classified as POAG (open drainage angle, glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and glaucomatous field defect), glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or non-POAG/nonocular hypertension. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test performance evaluated the individual as the unit of analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using predefined cutoffs for abnormality, generating sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Continuous data were used to derive estimates of sensitivity at 90% specificity and partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) plots from 90% to 100% specificity. RESULTS: From the reference standard examination, 26 subjects (5.1%) had POAG and 32 subjects (6.4%) were glaucoma suspects. Sensitivity (95% confidence interval) at 90% specificity for detection of glaucoma suspect/POAG combined was 41% (28-55) for FDT, 35% (21-48) for MMDT, and 57% (44-70) for best-performing OCT parameter (inferior quadrant RNFL thickness); for POAG, sensitivity was 62% (39-84) for FDT, 58% (37-78) for MMDT, and 83% (68-98) for inferior quadrant RNFL thickness. Partial AUROC was significantly greater for inferior RNFL thickness than visual-function tests (P < 0.001). Post-test probability of glaucoma suspect/POAG combined and definite POAG increased substantially when best-performing criteria were combined for FDT or MMDT, iVue OCT, and ORA. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of individual tests gave acceptable accuracy for POAG detection. Low specificity of visual-function tests precludes their use in isolation, but case detection improves by combining RNFL thickness analysis with visual function tests.

Agreement among optometrists and ophthalmologists in estimating limbal anterior chamber depth using the van Herick method.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter-observer agreement for measuring limbal anterior chamber depth (LACD) using the van Herick test in community optometrists, glaucoma specialist optometrists and ophthalmologists. METHODS: The study was divided into two phases. In the first phase, a random sample of 100 UK community optometrists were given an opportunity to select and grade eight digital slit-lamp images of anterior chamber angles using the original van Herick 4 point grading scale. The images were included in a clinical decision making study using computerised virtual case vignettes. In the second phase, hospital-based glaucoma specialist optometrists and glaucoma sub-specialist ophthalmologists graded the LACD of the right eye using a 7-point % grading scale in 57 consecutively presenting patients with suspect glaucoma. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using linearly weighted kappa (κw ). RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement for community optometrists was moderate, with a mean κw for grading photographic images of 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.57). Overall, ninety-two percent of observations were within one grade of the actual grade, although grading of narrow angles was associated with a 13% false negative error rate (based on a ≤ grade 2 threshold). For Phase 2 of the study, pairwise comparisons between optometrists and ophthalmologists showed that agreement was moderate to substantial (mean κw  = 0.54-0.65) with a false negative rate of 1.9% (based on a ≤ 25% threshold). Grading accuracy of specialist optometrists and ophthalmologists were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the present study found that community optometrists showed moderate inter-observer agreement for grading LACD. Glaucoma specialist optometrists showed moderate to substantial agreement with weighted kappa values that were equivalent to sub-specialist ophthalmologists. The augmented 7-point % grading scale is intuitive and potentially offers greater accuracy for grading narrow angles than the traditional 4-point scale for grading LACD.

The impact of postgraduate training on UK optometrists' clinical decision-making in glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of a postgraduate training module on optometrists' clinical decision-making in relation to the diagnosis and management of primary open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: A group of United Kingdom community optometrists (n = 53) were assessed immediately before and again 3 months after completing a 3-day didactic postgraduate university module on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. A smaller control cohort (n = 20), who did not receive the intervention, was recruited and completed the same assessments on two occasions, separated by approximately 3 months. The assessments comprised: knowledge of five key features of the optic disc in glaucoma, performance on a computer program (Discus) that assessed the ability to differentiate normal from glaucomatous discs and a clinical decision-making exercise using case-based scenarios. RESULTS: The scores for the knowledge of important disc features for the intervention cohort significantly increased from a median of 2/5 to 5/5 post-intervention (p < 0.001). For the control cohort, the difference in median scores between the two tests was not significant. Analysing the performance of the intervention cohort using the Discus program showed no significant improvement in ability to diagnose a glaucomatous disc following the intervention [mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve pre-intervention = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.91), post-intervention = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.91)]. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve between tests for the control cohort, although both cohorts compared favourably with a previously published Discus data set from a panel of experts in disc analysis (mean area = 0.87). For the clinical decision-making exercise the median test score for the intervention cohort was unchanged pre- and post-intervention. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that a traditional didactic approach, in isolation, is unlikely to be suited to training optometrists to achieve or develop the clinical competencies required for glaucoma detection and management. Consideration should be given to the development of specialist postgraduate training that is more practice-based, provides opportunities for active learning and includes strategies for feedback and reinforcement.

Manufacturer changes lead to clinically important differences between two editions of the TNO stereotest.

PURPOSE: Stereoacuity tests used in clinical practice should be repeatable and reproducible. However, it has been observed in a clinical setting that new editions of the TNO stereotest appear to give different values from those obtained using previous versions. The purpose of the present research was to investigate this observation. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one Dutch subjects, 88 (73%) females and 33 (27%) males, with an average age of 34.0 years (range 18-55) had their stereoacuity measured using two different versions of the TNO stereoacuity test (TNO 13 and TNO 15). The TNO was tested in a counterbalanced order so that consecutive subjects started with alternate editions to avoid bias. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the median value for stereoacuity measured with TNO 13 (30 s of arc) and TNO 15 (60 s of arc). The bias between the two test versions was -0.23 Log arcseconds (95% limits of the differences: 0.15 to -0.60 Log arcseconds). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that results obtained with two different editions of a commonplace stereoacuity test are not comparable. New versions come on the market at regular intervals and the assumption that they will give the same results as previous versions may not be valid. Besides the statistically significant difference between the TNO 13 and TNO 15, the Bland-Altman plot also showed a considerable bias and the 95% limits of the differences between the TNO 13 and TNO 15 are more than two steps on the Log arcsecond scale. This difference between two editions of the TNO stereotests is not clinically acceptable and therefore it is inappropriate to use the two versions of the test interchangeably. It is important in both research and clinical records to specify the edition of the TNO test used.

A survey of current and anticipated use of standard and specialist equipment by UK optometrists.

PURPOSE: To investigate current and anticipated use of equipment and information technology (IT) in community optometric practice in the UK, and to elicit optometrists' views on adoption of specialist equipment and IT. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was developed, covering use of standard and specialist diagnostic equipment, and IT. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 1300 UK College of Optometrists members. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-two responses were received (response rate = 35%). Enhanced (locally commissioned) or additional/separately contracted services were provided by 73% of respondents. Services included glaucoma repeat measures (30% of respondents), glaucoma referral refinement (22%), fast-track referral for wet age-related macular degeneration (48%), and direct cataract referral (40%). Most respondents (88%) reported using non-contact/pneumo tonometry for intra-ocular pressure measurement, with 81% using Goldmann or Perkins tonometry. The most widely used item of specialist equipment was the fundus camera (74% of respondents). Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) was used by 15% of respondents, up from 2% in 2007. Notably, 43% of those anticipating purchasing specialist equipment in the next 12 months planned to buy an OCT. 'Paperless' records were used by 39% of respondents, and almost 80% of practices used an electronic patient record/practice management system. Variations in responses between parts of the UK reflect differences in the provision of the General Ophthalmic Services contract or community enhanced services. There was general agreement that specialised equipment enhances clinical care, permits increased involvement in enhanced services, promotes the practice and can be used as a defence in clinico-legal cases, but initial costs and ongoing maintenance can be a financial burden. Respondents generally agreed that IT facilitates administrative flow and secure exchange of health information, and promotes a state-of-the-art practice image. However, use of IT may not save examination time; its dynamic nature necessitates frequent updates and technical support; the need for adequate training is an issue; and security of data is also a concern. CONCLUSION: UK optometrists increasingly employ modern equipment and IT services to enhance patient care and for practice management. While the clinical benefits of specialist equipment and IT are appreciated, questions remain as to whether the investment is cost-effective, and how specialist equipment and IT may be used to best advantage in community optometric practice.

Views and opinions of patients with glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration on vision home-monitoring: a UK-based focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the views, hopes and concerns of patients living with glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) regarding vision home-monitoring. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and questionnaires. Participants were given three disease-relevant home-monitoring tests to try. The tests consisted of three visual field tests for the glaucoma groups (Melbourne Rapid Fields, Eyecatcher, Visual Fields Fast) and three acuity and/or contrast-sensitivity tests for AMD groups (Alleye, PopCSF, SpotChecks). Focus group data were thematically analysed. SETTING: University meeting rooms in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eight people with glaucoma (five women, median age 74) and seven people with AMD (four women, median age 77) volunteered through two UK-based charities. Participants were excluded if they did not self-report a diagnosis of glaucoma or AMD or if they lived further than a 1-hour travel distance from the university (to ensure minimal travel burden on participants). RESULTS: Six themes emerged from focus groups, the two most frequently referenced being: 'concerns about home-monitoring' and 'patient and practitioner access to results'. Overall, participants believed home-monitoring could provide patients with a greater sense of control, but also expressed concerns, including: the possibility of home-monitoring replacing face-to-face appointments; the burden placed on clinicians by the need to process additional data; struggles to keep up with requisite technologies; and potential anxiety from seeing worrying results. Most devices were scored highly for usability, though several practical improvements were suggested. CONCLUSION: Patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma/AMD expect vision home-monitoring to be beneficial, but have significant concerns about its potential implementation.

Assessment of novel binocular colour, motion and contrast tests in glaucoma.

The effects of glaucoma on binocular visual sensitivity for the detection of various stimulus attributes are investigated at the fovea and in four paracentral retinal regions. The study employed a number of visual stimuli designed to isolate the processing of various stimulus attributes. We measured absolute contrast detection thresholds and functional contrast sensitivity by using Landolt ring stimuli. This psychophysical Landolt C-based contrast test of detection and gap discrimination allowed us to test parafoveally at 6 ° from fixation and foveally by employing interleaved testing locations. First-order motion perception was examined by using moving stimuli embedded in static luminance contrast noise. Red/green (RG) and yellow/blue (YB) colour thresholds were measured with the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test, which utilises random dynamic luminance contrast noise (± 45 %) to ensure that only colour and not luminance signals are available for target detection. Subjects were normal controls (n = 65) and glaucoma patients with binocular visual field defects (n = 15) classified based on their Humphrey Field Analyzer mean deviation (MD) scores. The impairment of visual function varied depending on the stimulus attribute and location tested. Progression of loss was noted for all tests as the degree of glaucoma increased. For subjects with mild glaucoma (MD -0.01 dB to -6.00 dB) significantly more data points fell outside the normal age-representative range for RG colour thresholds than for any other visual test, followed by motion thresholds. This was particularly the case for the parafoveal data compared with the foveal data. Thus, a multifaceted measure of binocular visual performance, incorporating RG colour and motion test at multiple locations, might provide a better index for comparison with quality of life measures in glaucoma.

Does optometrists' self-reported practice in glaucoma detection predict actual practice as determined by standardised patients?

PURPOSE: Questionnaires are commonly used as a proxy measure of clinical practice; however their application in a variety of healthcare settings has found significant self-reporting bias. The aim of this study is to estimate the validity of self-reporting as a measure of optometrist case-finding practice for glaucoma and the appropriate referral of suspects. METHODS: Two complementary approaches were used: (1) a sample of optometrists (N=34) on an ophthalmic list in West London were visited incognito by Standardised Patient (SP) volunteers aged over 54 who were trained to identify the components of a standard Sight Test. Optometrists from the same list were then invited to participate in a structured face-to-face interview regarding their case finding practice for glaucoma. The findings from the two sources were compared. (2) as part of a national glaucoma survey of optometrists, respondents (N=1264) were asked in a free text question for the information that they would include in a referral letter for suspect glaucoma. The responses were compared to the content of a sample of glaucoma referral letters (N=571) obtained from consultant ophthalmologists across the UK. In each case, the degree of correspondence ('match') between reported practice and actual practice was assessed by chi-square analysis. RESULTS: For the SP study there was incomplete correspondence between the questionnaire and SP reports in several areas e.g. questions relating to a complete history and symptoms, measurement of intra-ocular pressure and visual fields. Complete correspondence was found for questions asking about the routine assessment of ocular health and refraction. For the referral study, correspondence between survey findings and referral letters was obtained for IOP only. No correspondence was found for disc assessment, visual fields or family history of glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: The overall findings from both studies indicate that self-reported clinical practice questionnaires overestimate routine tests undertaken by optometrists in practice. Although there was a good correspondence for mandatory tests, correspondence was poor for discretionary tests. These findings should be borne in mind in all questionnaire studies that report current practice in glaucoma case-finding.

Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England.

OBJECTIVES: This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England. METHODS: Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from six practices in Scotland and England. If no reply was found, replies/records were copied from HES records. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited against established standards, evaluating whether referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. RESULTS: From 905 de-identified referrals, RR ranged from 2.6 to 8.7%. From COs' perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 37 to 84% (Scotland) and 26 to 49% (England). A total of 88-96% of referrals (Scotland) and 63-76% (England) were seen in the HES. Adjusting for cases when it is reasonable to expect replies, RRR becomes 45-92% (Scotland) and 38-62% (England) with RRR significantly greater in Scotland (P = 0.015). Replies were copied to patients in 0-21% of cases. Referrals were to the appropriate service and judged necessary in ≥90% of cases in both jurisdictions. Accuracy of referral ranged from 89 to 97% (Scotland) and 81 to 98% (England). The reply addressed the reason for referral in 94-100% of cases (Scotland) and 93-97% (England) and was meaningful in 95-100% (Scotland) and 94-99% (England). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interdisciplinary joint statement on sharing patient information, this audit highlights variable standard of referrals and deficits in replies to the referring COs, with one exception in Scotland. Replies from HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

Comparison of the effectiveness of two enhanced glaucoma referral schemes.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and financial effectiveness of two optometric-led enhanced glaucoma referral schemes in the Bexley Care Trust area. METHODS: Over a 12-month period all suspect glaucoma/Ocular Hypertension (OHT) referrals from optometrists relating to patients registered with Bexley GPs were analysed. All these patients were examined under one of two schemes. One was an enhanced glaucoma repeat measurement (EGRM) scheme in which the referring optometrist conducted the repeated tests him/herself prior to referral or non-referral. The alternative was a refinement pathway (RCAS) using a small team of accredited community optometrists. RESULTS: During the full year commencing April 2007, repeat measures using the EGRM scheme resulted in 76% of patients not being referred. In 44.5% of all EGRM patients, where raised intraocular pressure (IOP) was found by non-contact tonometry (NCT), repeated measurement by Goldmann/Perkins applanation tonometry resulted in readings that were <22 mmHg, or that had less than a 5 mmHg difference between the two eyes. Financial review demonstrated that the EGRM achieved 62% savings when compared with HES tariff while RCAS resulted in a saving of 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a primary care repeat measurement scheme to support referral decision-making demonstrated substantial cost benefit while onward referral for refinement by accredited optometrists was essentially cost-neutral compared with HES tariff. Local schemes foster fragmentation and consideration should be given to a service which covers a large population area.