Dataset Information

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

ABSTRACT:

Significance

Quality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established.

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs).

Methods

Patient outcomes and three quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) indicators (1, optimally prescribed spectacles; 2, adequately prescribed spectacles; 3, vector dioptric distance) were developed using existing literature, refraction training standards, and consulting educators. Twenty-one USPs with various refractive errors were trained to visit optical stores across Vietnam to have a refraction, observe techniques, and order spectacles. Spectacles were assessed against each Q.REC indicator and tested for associations with vision and comfort.

Results

Overall, 44.1% (184/417) of spectacles provided good vision and comfort. Of the spectacles that met Q.REC indicators 1 and 2, 62.5 and 54.9%, respectively, provided both good vision and comfort. Optimally prescribed spectacles (indicator 1) were significantly more likely to provide good vision and comfort independently compared with spectacles that did not meet any indicator (good vision: 94.6 vs. 85.0%, P = .01; comfortable: 66.1 vs. 36.3%, P < .01). Adequately prescribed spectacles (indicator 2) were more likely to provide good comfort compared with spectacles not meeting any indicator (57.7 vs. 36.3%, P < .01); however, vision outcomes were not significantly different (85.9 vs. 85.0%, P = .90). Good vision was associated with a lower mean vector dioptric distance (P < .01) but not with comfort (P = .52).

Conclusions

The optimally prescribed spectacles indicator is a promising approach for assessing the quality of refractive error care without additional assessments of vision and comfort. Using USPs is a practical approach and could be used as a standardized method for evaluating the quality of refractive error care.

SUBMITTER: Lee L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7774814 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Lee Ling L Burnett Anthea M AM D'Esposito Fabrizio F Fricke Tim T Nguyen Long Tien LT Vuong Duong Anh DA Nguyen Hien Thi Thu HTT Yu Mitasha M Nguyen Ngoc Viet My NVM Huynh Ly Phuong LP Ho Suit May SM

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 20210101 1

<h4>Significance</h4>Quality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established.<h4>Purpose</h4>This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs).<h4>Methods</h4>Patient outcomes and three quality of refractive err ...[more]

PMID: 33394928

Similar Datasets

Project description:Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care.We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate.A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands.We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Project description:Accommodative esotropia (AE) is a convergent deviation due to an excess of the convergence linked to the innervational stimulus for accommodation and it is usually associated to the presence of hyperopia. The development of hyperopia over time has been widely described but the lack of comparative analysis among accommodative esotropia subtypes, does not allow to verify the existence of different developmental patterns. In this study we aimed to describe the long term changes of refractive error in patients affected by accommodative esotropia as a function of the strabismus type: refractive (RAE), non-refractive (NRAE) and partially accommodative esotropia (PAE). The medical records of 66 patients (24 RAE, 22 PAE, 20 NRAE), who wore the full correction of their cycloplegic refraction error during the entire follow up period, were retrospectively reviewed. Mean outcome was the analysis of the variations, among groups, of refractive error over time; differences between mild (≤3.00D) and high (≥5.00D) hyperopia, effects of amblyopia and relationship with AC/A ratio were also investigated. All patients were followed up from approximately 4 years of age to 20, with mean follow up of 16.06±0.29 years. Our results described similar non-linear trend of refractive error development among groups. The initial increase of hyperopia (up to 7-8 years) was followed by a decreasing trend persisting up to adulthood (approximately 20 years of age). During this period, spherical equivalent decreased at a lower mean annual rate in patients affected by RAE (-0.07D) compared to other groups (NRAE -0.11D, p = 0.003 and PAE 0.13D, p = 0.002). In all groups, however, significant amount of hyperopia was found at last examination; indeed the observed difference in SE values from baseline to the end of follow up, was not significant (RAE: +0.27D, 95% C.I. -0.49 to +1.04D, p = 0.472; PAE: -0.69D, 95% C.I. -1.67 to +0.28D, p = 0.154; NRAE: -0.39D, 95% C.I. -1.11 to +0.34D, p = 0.278). AC/A ratio, amblyopia and amount of initial hyperopia appeared to have no significant role in longitudinal change of the refractive error. In conclusion, this study provides a complete overview, from childhood to adulthood, of refractive error development in different form of accommodative esotropia.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Dataset Information

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Significance

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure