[Ophthalmological health care of the institutionalized elderly : The OVIS study]. / Ophthalmologische Versorgung in Seniorenheimen : Die OVIS-Studie.

BACKGROUND: Due to demographic change and societal transformation the number of elderly persons living in retirement homes is growing in Germany. Access to health care is more complicated in the setting of nursing homes. Different regional studies suggest unmet ophthalmological health care needs in institutionalized elderly people. This study assessed the current ophthalmological health care structure and supply status in nursing homes in Germany. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted by 14 study centers in Germany. Elderly people living in 32 nursing homes were included after approval by the local institutional review boards. A standardized examination was performed which included a detailed medical and ocular history, refraction, visual acuity testing, tonometry, biomicroscopy and dilated funduscopy. Unmet ophthalmological health care needs were documented and the data were analyzed descriptively and via logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: A total of 600 participants (434 women and 166 men) aged 50-104 years were examined of which 368 (61%) had ophthalmological conditions requiring treatment. The most prevalent findings were cataracts (315; 53%), disorders of the eyelids (127; 21%), dry eye disease (57; 10%) and posterior capsule opacification (43; 7%). In 63 (11%) of the participants glaucoma was suspected and 55 (9%) of the examined population had a known diagnosis of glaucoma, of whom one third was not on any or on insufficient anti-glaucomatous therapy. 236 (39%) showed signs of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Only 52% of the examined cohort had been examined by an ophthalmologist within the last 5 years and 39% stated that they would currently not be able to consult an ophthalmologist. Reported barriers were mainly transport and lack of support. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates considerable unmet ophthalmological health care needs of the institutionalized elderly in Germany. Novel and reformed models of specialist care provision have to be developed.

[Ophthalmological assessment in procedures for disability benefits for the blind : Why medical certificates alone are insufficient]. / Augenärztliche Begutachtung im Blindengeldverfahren : Warum Atteste alleine nicht ausreichen.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Financial aid for the blind which is awarded based only on medical certificates and results of examinations has in the past resulted in too many false diagnoses; therefore, Bavaria seeks to pay financial aid to the blind only on the basis of a specific ophthalmological assessment according to the standards of the German pension medical ordinance (VersMedV, Versorgungsmedizinische Verordnung). Because these ophthalmological assessments initially contribute to a higher financial burden on the state, longer processing times and inconvenience to the patient, investigations should be undertaken to determine if ophthalmological findings, reports and medical certificates can be a suitable basis for an expert assessment and in how many cases blindness which had been certified by the original examination could be confirmed by a specific ophthalmological assessment. METHODS: A total of 925 applications for financial assistance to the blind within the catchment area of the Bavarian Center for Family and Social Services (ZBFS, Zentrum Bayern Familie und Soziales) regional center in Upper Bavaria between 2003 and 2008, all of which had been subjected to an assessment by the same practitioner acting as external expert, were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 357 applicants who had been classified as blind according to the medical certificate and findings, 283 (79 %) were confirmed as being blind after the assessment and in 73 (21 %) blindness could not be confirmed. Of the 262 applicants who were classified as not being blind during the first examination, the diagnosis was confirmed in 192 (73 %) while 70 cases (27 %) were classified as blind. Of the 304 applicants for whom an assessment was not possible by the medical certification, 165 were ultimately classified as blind and 139 as not blind. Out of 32 applicants who were explicitly classified as being blind in the medical certificate, 13 were confirmed as being blind while the remaining 18 were classified in the subsequent assessment as not blind. CONCLUSION: Apart from unambiguous cases, the awarding of financial aid to the blind should only be based on an ophthalmological assessment which follows the VersMedV guidelines. Only this approach can result in an equal treatment of all applicants before the law and the awarding of financial aid to the blind to assist those truly in need. In addition, fiscal budget results revealed that the falsely awarded financial aid to the blind reached well beyond millions of Euros.