Certification for vision impairment: researching perceptions, processes and practicalities in health and social care professionals and patients.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience, and the role of ophthalmologists and other health and social care professionals in the certification and registration processes and examine the main barriers to the timely certification of patients. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Telephone interviews with health and social care professionals and patients in three areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: 43 health and social care professionals who are part of the certification or registration process. 46 patients certified as severely sight impaired (blind) or sight impaired (partially sighted) within the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Certification and registration are life changing for patients and the help they receive can substantially improve their lives. Despite this, ophthalmologists often found it difficult to ascertain when it is appropriate to certify patients, particularly for people with long-term conditions. Ophthalmologists varied in their comprehension of the certification process and many regarded certification as the 'final stage' in treatment. Administrative procedures meant the process of certification and registration could vary from a few weeks to many months. The avoidable delays in completing certification can be helped by Eye Clinic Liaison Officers (ECLO). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the certification and registration processes can help improve standards of support and service provision for people who are severely sighted impaired or sight impaired. Better education and support are required for ophthalmologists in recognising the importance of timely referral for rehabilitative support through certification and registration. ECLOs can improve the process of certification and registration. Finally, better education is needed for patients on the benefits of certification and registration.

Glaucoma detection: the content of optometric eye examinations for a presbyopic patient of African racial descent.

AIMS: Standardised patient (SP) methodology is the gold standard for evaluating clinical practice. We investigated the content of optometric eyecare for an early presbyopic SP of African racial descent, an "at-risk" patient group for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: A trained actor presented unannounced as a 44-year-old patient of African racial descent, complaining of recent near vision difficulties, to 100 community optometrists for an audio-recorded eye examination. The eye examinations were subsequently assessed via a checklist based on evidence-based POAG reviews, clinical guidelines and expert panel opinion. RESULTS: Ninety-five per cent of optometrists carried out optic disc assessment and tonometry, which conforms to the UK College of Optometrists' advice that those patients aged >40 years should receive at least two of the following tests: tonometry, optic disc assessment, visual field testing. Thirty-five per cent of optometrists carried out all of these tests and 6% advised the SP of increased POAG risk in those of African racial descent. CONCLUSION: SP encounters are an effective measure of optometric clinical practice. As in other healthcare disciplines, there are substantial differences between optometrists in the depth of their clinical investigations, challenging the concept of a "standard sight test". There is a need for continuing professional development (CPD) in glaucoma screening, in which the increased risk of POAG in those of African racial descent should be emphasised.