Dataset Information

Agreement between ophthalmologists and optometrists in the certification of vision impairment.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

The certification process to register patients as sight impaired or severely sight impaired is undertaken by consultant ophthalmologists, in the UK. We sought to assess the agreement between optometrists and a consensus panel, in identifying patient eligibility for certification, relative to the agreement between ophthalmologists and the consensus panel.

Methods

The consensus panel (4 consultant ophthalmologists and 3 optometrists with a formal accreditation in low vision), 30 consultant ophthalmologists and 99 low vision optometrists reviewed 40 randomly selected abridged cases. The eligibility outcomes from the ophthalmologists and the optometrists were compared with the consensus panel outcomes.

Results

For ophthalmologists and optometrists, the median (IQR) number of cases in which there was agreement with the consensus panel was 33.0 (31.0, 33.0) and 36.0 (34.0, 36.5), respectively. In severely sight impaired cases, the probabilities of agreeing on eligibility for certification were 76.0% (95% CIs 71.4%, 80.1%) for ophthalmologists and 61.8% (59.0%, 64.6%) for optometrists. In sight impaired cases, the corresponding values were 51.6% (46.7%, 56.4%) for ophthalmologists and 72.2% (69.8%, 74.5%) for optometrists. In cases of bilateral atrophic age-related macular degeneration (AMD), both groups were more likely to agree with the consensus panel and the differences between optometrists and ophthalmologists were less marked.

Conclusions

Optometrists demonstrated a comparable agreement relative to ophthalmologists, with the consensus panel on the eligibility of randomly selected, abridged cases for certification. The findings support the clinical decision-making ability of low vision optometrists in the certification of patients with vision impairment and provide evidence in support of policy change to allow low vision optometrists to certify individuals with atrophic AMD.

SUBMITTER: Bartlett R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8027788 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo determine whether UK optometrists and ophthalmologists provide target refraction advice to patients prior to cataract surgery, and when this should first be discussed.MethodsOptometrists and ophthalmologists were asked to complete a survey of two clinical vignettes (both older patients with cataract; a pre-operative myope who routinely read without glasses and a patient using a monovision approach), plus multiple choice and short answer questions either using hard copy or online.ResultsResponses were obtained from 437 optometrists and 50 ophthalmologists. Optometrists who reported they would provide target refraction advice were more experienced (median 22 years) than those who would leave this to the Hospital Eye Service (median 10 years). The former group reported it was in the patients' best interest to make an informed decision as they had seen many myopic patients who read uncorrected pre-operatively, and were unhappy that they could no longer do so after surgery. Inexperienced optometrists reported that they did not want to overstep their authority and left the decision to the ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologists estimated their percentage of emmetropic target refractions over the last year to have been 90%.ConclusionCurrently, some long-term myopes become dissatisfied after cataract surgery due to an emmetropic target refraction that leaves them unable to read without glasses as they did prior to surgery. Although experienced optometrists are aware of this and attempt to discuss this issue with patients, less experienced optometrists tend not to. This suggests that target refraction needs greater exposure in university training and continuing professional development. To provide patients with the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding their surgery, we suggest an agreed protocol within funded direct referral schemes of initial target refraction discussions by optometrists to introduce the idea of refractive outcomes and outline options, with further discussion with the ophthalmologist to clarify understanding.

Project description:BackgroundTo gain more insight into genetic causes of cerebral visual impairment (CVI) in children and to compare ophthalmological findings between genetic and acquired forms of CVI.MethodsThe clinical data of 309 individuals (mainly children) with CVI, and a visual acuity ? 0.3 were analyzed for etiology and ocular variables. A differentiation was made between acquired and genetic causes. However, in persons with West syndrome or hydrocephalus, it might be impossible to unravel whether CVI is caused by the seizure disorder or increased intracranial pressure or by the underlying disorder (that in itself can be acquired or genetic). In two subgroups, individuals with 'purely' acquired CVI and with 'purely' genetic CVI, the ocular variables (such as strabismus, pale optic disc and visual field defects) were compared.ResultsIt was possible to identify a putative cause for CVI in 60% (184/309) of the cohort. In the remaining 40% the etiology could not be determined. A 'purely' acquired cause was identified in 80 of the patients (26%). West syndrome and/or hydrocephalus was identified in 21 patients (7%), and in 17 patients (6%) both an acquired cause and West and/or hydrocephalus was present. In 66 patients (21%) a genetic diagnosis was obtained, of which 38 (12%) had other possible risk factor (acquired, preterm birth, West syndrome or hydrocephalus), making differentiation between acquired and genetic not possible. In the remaining 28 patients (9%) a 'purely' genetic cause was identified.CVI was identified for the first time in several genetic syndromes, such as ATR-X, Mowat-Wilson, and Pitt Hopkins syndrome. In the subgroup with 'purely' acquired causes (N = 80) strabismus (88% versus 64%), pale optic discs (65% versus 27%) and visual field defects (72% versus 30%) could be observed more frequent than in the subgroup with 'purely' genetic disorders (N = 28).ConclusionsWe conclude that CVI can be part of a genetic syndrome and that abnormal ocular findings are present more frequently in acquired forms of CVI.

Project description:SignificancePhysically unhealthy days assessments in national health surveillance datasets represent a useful metric for quantifying quality-of-life differences in those with and without vision impairment. Disproportionately poorer physical health in the visually impaired population provides further rationale for the inclusion of vision care in multidisciplinary approaches to chronic disease management.PurposeThis study aimed to assess the association between vision impairment and health-related quality of life using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.MethodsData from each of the 50 states were extracted from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data set. Self-report of difficulty seeing was used to categorize visually impaired versus nonvisually impaired populations. Self-report number of physically unhealthy days in the previous 30 days was used to quantify quality of life. The number of unhealthy days was calculated for the visually impaired and nonvisually impaired cohorts for each state. The ratio of the number of physically unhealthy days in the visually impaired versus nonvisually impaired population was calculated for each state and for different age cohorts.ResultsMean numbers of physically unhealthy days among persons with and without severe vision impairment across all states were 10.63 and 3.68 days, respectively, and demonstrated considerable geographic variability. Mean ratios of physically unhealthy healthy days in the visually impaired versus the nonvisually impaired population were 2.91 in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort, 2.87 in the 40- to 64-year-old cohort, and 2.16 in the ≥65-year-old cohort.ConclusionsNational surveillance data demonstrate a greater number of physically unhealthy days in the visually impaired population, indicating a need to improve our understanding of causes that lead to reduced physical health among those with vision impairment. Additional research is needed to better understand how individuals perceive vision as part of their overall health.