Dataset Information

Agreement in clinical decision-making between independent prescribing optometrists and consultant ophthalmologists in an emergency eye department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The specialty-registration of independent prescribing (IP) was introduced for optometrists in 2008, which extended their roles including into acute ophthalmic services (AOS). The present study is the first since IP's introduction to test concordance between IP optometrists and consultant ophthalmologists for diagnosis and management in AOS.

Methods

The study ran prospectively for 2 years at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (MREH). Each participant was individually assessed by an IP optometrist and then by the reference standard of a consultant ophthalmologist; diagnosis and management were recorded on separate, masked proformas. IP optometrists were compared to the reference standard in stages. Cases of disagreement were arbitrated by an independent consultant ophthalmologist. Cases where disagreement persisted after arbitration underwent consensus-review. Agreement was measured with percentages, and where possible kappa (Κ), for: diagnosis, prescribing decision, immediate management (interventions during assessment) and onward management (review, refer or discharge).

Results

A total of 321 participants presented with 423 diagnoses. Agreement between all IP optometrists and the staged reference standard was as follows: 'almost perfect' for diagnosis (Κ = 0.882 ± 0.018), 'substantial' for prescribing decision (Κ = 0.745 ± 0.034) and 'almost perfect' for onward management (0.822 ± 0.032). Percentage-agreement between all IP optometrists and the staged reference standard per diagnosis was 82.0% (CI 78.1-85.4%), and per participant using stepwise weighting was 85.7% (CI 81.4-89.1%).

Conclusions

Clinical decision-making in MREH's AOS by experienced and appropriately trained IP optometrists is concordant with consultant ophthalmologists. This is the first study to explore and validate IP optometrists' role in the high-risk field of AOS.

SUBMITTER: Todd D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7785022 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS:We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS:Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION:We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.