Practising refraction in ophthalmology: instructive or outdated? A prospective study and literature review.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many ophthalmologists preform clinical refactions, although little is known of the perceptions and practise of refraction by ophthalmologists and key barriers preventing this aspect of ophthalmic practice. BACKGROUND: Although there are numerous studies on visual acuity in ophthalmology, there is no study to date on the practice of refraction by ophthalmologists. This study evaluates the practice patterns of ophthalmologists in current practice. It specifically addresses perceptions of ophthalmologists about (a) the importance of refraction in clinical practice, and (b) barriers to performing refraction. The methodology and frequency of performing refraction by ophthalmologists is also assessed. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Annual Scientific Congress of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of ophthalmologists in 2017, held in Perth, Australia. All attending ophthalmologists and ophthalmology trainees were invited to participate. Participants completed a 17-variable questionnaire on the perceptions of practitioners about refraction and their practice of it. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Version 24. RESULTS: At this Congress, 213 attendees completed the survey, with most being consultant general ophthalmologists (85%). Twenty-six percent of participants either 'really loved' or 'liked' refracting patients. Those who reported feeling competent with refraction were more likely to perform it themselves (p = 0.001). Individuals most commonly reported taking 3-5 minutes to refract a patient (38%). Participants under the age of 65, and participants practising paediatric ophthalmology, were more likely to perform a refraction. CONCLUSIONS: The literature indicates that this is the first study to describe the practice patterns of refraction by ophthalmologists. Although ophthalmologists found refraction important, the majority preferred patients to be refracted by others. Key barriers to ophthalmologists performing refraction included the time required to perform the refraction, a busy clinic, and the availability of alternative providers.

Building on Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs Through Integration with Electronic Medical Records: The Australian Experience.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is well established in Australian hospitals. Electronic medical record (EMR) implementation has lagged in Australia, with two Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Stage 6 hospitals and one Stage 7 hospital as of September 2020. Specific barriers faced by AMS teams with paper-based prescribing and medical records include real-time identification of antimicrobials orders; the ability to prospectively monitor antimicrobial use; and the integration of fundamental point of prescribing AMS principles into routine clinical practice. There are few local guidelines to assist Australian hospitals and AMS teams beyond "out of the box" EMR functionality. EMR implementation has enormous potential to positively impact AMS teams through more efficient workflows and the ability to expand the reach and coverage of AMS activities. There are inevitable limitations associated with EMR implementation that must be considered. In this paper, four Australian hospitals share their experience with EMR roll out, AMS customisation and how they have overcome specific barriers in local AMS practice.

Antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback rounds: the impact of electronic systems and moving beyond the restricted antibiotic list.

BACKGROUND: Current methods of antimicrobial usage surveillance have limited efficacy in changing practice due to delayed reporting to clinicians and the inability to stratify by medical specialty. This study was undertaken in a tertiary teaching hospital with a well established antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme and electronic medicines management (eMM) system in Sydney, Australia. AIMS: To describe and analyse the implementation of a novel AMS audit and feedback method, in the context of an eMM system. METHODS: The AMS team conducted the audit weekly, and the study design was a prospective, observational study. All acute, adult inpatients were included in this intervention. All active systemic antimicrobial prescriptions on the day of the rounds were included. RESULTS: The prevalence of patients on antimicrobial therapy was 37%. The median time taken per round was 44 min for eMM compared to 58 min for paper. All key performance indicators improved over the study period. Appropriateness compared to guidelines increased from 55% to 71%, and documentation of an indication increased from 75% to 98%. There were 1413 recommendations made, with the most common being to cease an antimicrobial agent. The recommendation uptake rate was 47% at 24 h post-round. CONCLUSIONS: AMS rounds are an effective tool for auditing and providing feedback on antimicrobial use and should include all antimicrobials rather than solely 'restricted' agents. These rounds had a high uptake rate, improvements in the appropriateness of antimicrobial use, and a planned duration or review date. A benefit of eMM was improvement in the documentation of indication for antimicrobial agents, and reduced time taken to audit.