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.

The development & evaluation of two vision screening tools for correctable visual loss in older people.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, 20-50% of older people have undetected reduced vision and in most cases this results from correctable problems (refractive error and cataract). Many older people are not availing themselves of state-funded community optometric care. We assessed the efficacy of two vision screening instruments at detecting correctable visual problems and investigated the effect of optometric intervention on quality of life. METHODS: A computerised vision screener (CVS) was developed and refined after a preliminary study of 180 older people to include tests of: monocular presenting distance high contrast and low contrast visual acuities (VAs), binocular near acuities, and monocular visual fields. The modified CVS and a flip-chart vision screener (FVS) were evaluated on a second sample of 200 people aged 65+ (mean age 77 years). All participants in both studies were given an optometric eye examination, including high and low contrast VAs, refraction, binocular vision tests, tonometry, automated perimetry, and dilated fundoscopy including cataract grading and ARM grading. The target conditions were significant gain in monocular distance VA or binocular near VA with new refractive correction, significant cataract, or macular degeneration at risk of rapid progression. The Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (LVQoL) was administered before and up to 3 months after testing. RESULTS: For the CVS, the best sensitivity (80.3%, 95% CI 72.4-86.4; specificity 66.7%, 95% CI 55.6-76.1) was obtained for a screener test combination of a fail on high contrast VA (>0.19 LogMAR) OR low contrast VA (>0.39 LogMAR) OR near VA (>N11.9). A screener test combination of high contrast VA OR near VA gave sensitivity of 79.5% (71.5-85.7) and specificity 67.9% (57-77.3). For the FVS, the best sensitivity was obtained for a test combination of a fail on high contrast VA OR low contrast VA OR near VA (sensitivity 82%, 95% CI 74.2-87.8; specificity 61.5%, 95% CI 50.4-71.6). A screener test combination of low contrast VA alone gave sensitivity of 75.4% (67.1-82.2) and specificity 76.9% (66.4-84.9). Significant improvements in LVQoL were found, with a significant correlation between gain in VA with new spectacles and improvement in LVQoL. CONCLUSIONS: The vision screeners are effective tools for detecting those with reduced vision. Further work is required to determine their effectiveness as a tool for encouraging older people to engage in regular eyecare.

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.

Provision of NHS-funded spectacles in South London.

BACKGROUND: In the UK the National Health Service (NHS) funds primary eyecare in the form of General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) mostly via 'sight tests' with community optometrists. Eligible groups include those aged 60 years or more and many are also entitled to an NHS optical voucher to be used to fund spectacles. Only some optical practices provide spectacles whose cost is fully covered by the voucher value which we describe as voucher value spectacles (VVS). As part of a larger study investigating vision screening in the older population, we sought to investigate the proportion of practices that provide VVS. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all optical practices in South London and also a more national sample of optometrists using the UK optometry e-mail discussion list. RESULTS: All 75 respondents provide NHS sight tests. VVS were provided by 59% of the total sample (70% of the South London sample). For those who supply VVS, the number of frames that were provided for patients to choose from ranged from 1 to 100, with a median of 16.5. Of those practitioners who did not supply VVS, 13% provided spectacles whose lens cost was fully covered by the NHS Voucher. DISCUSSION: In South London nearly a third of the practices do not provide VVS and it has been suggested that this is because the voucher values are uneconomic. The limited availability of VVS may act as one of the barriers that result in so many older people in the UK having poor vision simply through lack of appropriate spectacles.

Vision screening of older people.

A recent systematic review found that between 20% and 50% of older people in the UK have undetected reduced vision and in most cases this is caused by refractive error or cataracts, and is correctable. Two approaches to improve the detection of these problems are to better publicise optometric services and to carry out community-based vision screening of older people. Screening programmes should pass the Wilson criteria and a consideration of these highlights three inter-related questions: 'Is vision screening effective at detecting correctable low vision in older people?'; 'Which tests should be included?' and 'Which venues are most appropriate?' We carried out a systematic review to investigate these questions. For the first question, only one study was found which met our selection criteria. The 'gold standard' eye examination in this study lacked several important components, and the vision screening method that was used was not found to be very effective. The review revealed other studies, which, although not meeting our selection criteria, included relevant information. The screening studies highlight the lack of agreement on the content of a gold standard eye examination and of the test(s) that should be used to screen vision. Visual function in older people is not adequately described by high contrast visual acuity (VA), nor by self-reports of visual difficulties. Other tests that may be relevant include visual field testing, low contrast VA, contrast sensitivity and stereo-acuity. The pinhole test has often been used in attempts to detect uncorrected refractive errors, but results from this test can be problematic and possible reasons for this are discussed. Appropriate venues for vision screening are contingent upon the format of the vision screening programme. There is still uncertainty over the battery of vision tests that are most appropriate. This, and optimum venues for screening, require further research before it can be fully determined whether vision screening of older people meets the Wilson criteria. If a vision screening programme using a battery of vision tests, perhaps computerised, can be established, then this should be tested to determine the sensitivity and specificity for detecting the target conditions. Ultimately, longitudinal studies are necessary to determine whether such a screening programme will lead to improved visual performance and quality of life in older people.