A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care.

Despite the existence of evidence-based recommendations to decrease risk and progression of Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) for some time, self-reported practices suggest that eyecare professionals' advice and people with AMD's adherence to these recommendations can be very poor. This study uses qualitative methods to explore Australian eyecare professionals' perspective on barriers to effective AMD care. Seven focus groups involving 65 optometrists were conducted by an experienced facilitator. A nominal group technique was used to identify, prioritize and semi-quantify barriers and enablers to AMD care. Participants individually ranked their perceived top five barriers and enablers with the most important granted a score of 5 and the least important a score of 1. For each barrier or enabler, the number of votes it received and its total score were recorded. Barriers and enablers selected by at least one participant in their top 5 were then qualitatively analysed, grouped using thematic analysis and total score calculated for each consolidated barrier or enabler. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with 10 ophthalmologists and 2 optometrists. Contributions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. One hundred and sixty-nine barriers and 51 enablers to AMD care were identified in the focus groups. Of these, 102 barriers and 42 enablers were selected as one of their top 5 by at least one participant and further consolidated into 16 barriers and 10 enablers after thematic analysis. Factors impacting AMD care identified through analysis of the transcripts were coded to three categories of influence: patient-centered, practitioner-centered, and structural factors. Eyecare professionals considered poor care pathways, people with AMD's poor disease understanding / denial, and cost of care / lack of funding, as the most significant barriers to AMD care; they considered shared care model, access, and communication as the most significant enablers to good AMD care. These findings suggest that Australian eyecare professionals perceive that there is a need for improved patient support systems and appropriately funded, clearer care pathway to benefit people with AMD.

Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? The iCareTrack feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: The CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery. DESIGN: Cross-sectional feasibility study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling. METHODS: Retrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received. RESULTS: A median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69% (95% CI 67% to 70%) for preventative eye care, 60% (95% CI 56% to 58%) for glaucoma and 63% (95% CI 57% to 69%) for diabetic eye care. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.