How optometrists record corneal staining.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine current approaches adopted by optometrists to the recording of corneal staining following fluorescein instillation. METHODS: An anonymous 'record-keeping task' was sent to all 756 practitioners who are members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. This task comprised a form on which appeared a colour photograph depicting contact lens solution-induced corneal staining. Next to the photograph was an empty box, in which practitioners were asked to record their observations. Practitioners were also asked to indicate the level of severity of the condition at which treatment would be instigated. RESULTS: Completed task forms were returned by 228 optometrists, representing a 30 per cent response rate. Ninety-two per cent of respondents offered a diagnosis. The most commonly used descriptive terms were 'superficial punctate keratitis' (36 per cent of respondents) and 'punctate staining' (29 per cent). The level of severity and location of corneal staining were noted by 69 and 68 per cent of respondents, respectively. A numerical grade was assigned by 44 per cent of respondents. Only three per cent nominated the grading scale used. The standard deviation of assigned grades was ± 0.6. The condition was sketched by 35 per cent of respondents and two per cent stated that they would take a photograph of the eye. Ten per cent noted the eye in which the condition was being observed. Opinions of the level of severity at which treatment for corneal staining should be instigated varied considerably between practitioners, ranging from 'any sign of corneal staining' to 'grade 4 staining'. CONCLUSION: Although most practitioners made a sensible note of the condition and properly recorded the location of corneal staining, serious deficiencies were evident regarding other aspects of record-keeping. Ongoing programs of professional optometric education should reinforce good practice in relation to clinical record-keeping.

A survey of the use of grading scales for contact lens complications in optometric practice.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications ('grading scales') in optometric practice. METHODS: An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. RESULTS: Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). CONCLUSION: Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.