Dataset Information

A survey of the criteria for prescribing in cases of borderline refractive errors.

ABSTRACT: This research investigated the reported optometric prescribing criteria of Israeli optometrists.An online questionnaire based on previous studies was distributed via email and social networking sites to optometrists in Israel. The questionnaire surveyed the level of refractive error at which respondents would prescribe for different types of refractive error at various ages with and without symptoms.124 responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of approximately 12-22%, 92% of whom had trained in Israel. For all refractive errors, the presence of symptoms strongly influenced prescribing criteria. For example, for 10-20 year old patients the degree of hyperopia for which 50% of practitioners would prescribe is +0.75 D in the presence of symptoms but twice this value (+1.50 D) in the absence of symptoms. As might be expected, optometrists prescribed at lower degrees of hyperopia for older compared with younger patients. There was a trend for more experienced practitioners to be less likely to prescribe for lower degrees of myopia and presbyopia. Practitioner gender, country of training, the type of practice environment, and financial incentives were not strongly related to prescribing criteria.The prescribing criteria found in this study are broadly comparable with those in previous studies and with published prescribing guidelines. Subtle indications suggest that optometrists may become more conservative in their prescribing criteria with experience.

SUBMITTER: Shneor E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4705315 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A survey of the criteria for prescribing in cases of borderline refractive errors.

Shneor Einat E Evans Bruce John William BJ Fine Yael Y Shapira Yehudit Y Gantz Liat L Gordon-Shaag Ariela A

Journal of optometry 20160101 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>This research investigated the reported optometric prescribing criteria of Israeli optometrists.<h4>Methods</h4>An online questionnaire based on previous studies was distributed via email and social networking sites to optometrists in Israel. The questionnaire surveyed the level of refractive error at which respondents would prescribe for different types of refractive error at various ages with and without symptoms.<h4>Results</h4>124 responses were obtained, yielding a response ...[more]

PMID: 26520884

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe and compare CBCT imaging prescription in clinical practice among orthodontists from five countries in Europe and America. Additionally, it investigated factors associated with the prescribing and the use of guidelines for CBCT imaging.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out using an online questionnaire sent to all registered orthodontists in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Romania, and the United States of America (USA). The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and Poisson regression.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 1284 participants. CBCT was prescribed by 84.4% of the participants for selected cases (84.9%), mainly for impacted teeth (92.4%), presurgical planning (54.1%), and root resorption (51.9%). High cost was most frequently the limiting factor for CBCT prescription (55.4%). Only 45.2% of those who were using CBCT imaging reported adhering to guidelines. CBCT imaging prescription was associated with the orthodontists' countries (p < .009, except for Belgium, p = .068), while the use of guidelines was associated with the respondents' country and additional training on CBCT imaging (p < .001).ConclusionsOrthodontists refer patients for CBCT for selected indications (impacted teeth, root resorption, presurgical planning, dentofacial deformities, as suggested by the international guidelines, and also for upper airway and temporomandibular joint evaluation). Many do not adhere to specific guidelines. There are substantial variations between the countries about the orthodontists' referral for CBCT and guideline usage, irrespective of gender. CBCT prescription may be limited by financial barriers, adhering to specific guidelines and prior CBCT training.Clinical relevanceCBCT prescription among orthodontists must be based on prescription criteria and current guidelines. It is advised to improve CBCT education and training to enhance CBCT selection, referral, analysis, and interpretation in orthodontic practice.

Project description:PurposeCorrection of refractive error in children is important for visual and educational development. The aim of this questionnaire-based study was to explore paediatric refractive correction by optometrists in England.MethodsAn online questionnaire was piloted and distributed to optometrists in England. The questionnaire asked about respondents' characteristics (such as type of practice), management of refractive error in 1- and 3-year-old children and sources of information used as a basis for decisions on prescribing refractive error in children.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-three questionnaires were returned, although only 139 (47%) were fully completed. In an average month, about half of respondents examined no children between 0 and 2 years of age, and about half examined no more than five children aged 3-4 years. A significant proportion indicated they would refer children aged 1 or 3 years with refractive error and no other signs or symptoms into the hospital eye service. Almost a quarter would prescribe in full or in part an isometropic refractive correction of +2.00 D for a 3-year-old (within the normal range) with no other signs or symptoms, suggesting a degree of unnecessary prescribing. Almost all would act in cases of clinically significant refractive error. Respondents made similar use of their colleagues, optometric or postgraduate/continuing education, professional guidance and peer-reviewed research as sources of evidence on which to base decisions about prescribing for paediatric refractive errors. Most reported 'never' or 'rarely' using Cochrane reviews.ConclusionsThese results suggest optometrists often defer management of paediatric refractive error to the hospital eye service, with implications in terms of underutilisation of community optometric expertise and burden on the National Health Service. In some cases, the results indicate a mismatch between respondents' reported management and existing guidance/guidelines on paediatric prescribing.

Project description:Objectives(1) Systematically assemble, analyse and synthesise published evidence on causes of prescribing error in children. (2) Present results to a multidisciplinary group of paediatric prescribing stakeholders to validate findings and establish how causative factors lead to errors in practice.DesignScoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, including stakeholder consultation; qualitative evidence synthesis.MethodsWe followed the six scoping review stages. (1) Research question-the research question was 'What is known about causes of prescribing error in children?' (2) Search strategy-we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (from inception to February 2018), grey literature and reference lists of included studies. (3) Article selection-all published evidence contributing information on the causes of prescribing error in children was eligible for inclusion. We included review articles as secondary evidence to broaden understanding. (4) Charting data-results were collated in a custom data charting form. (5) Reporting results-we summarised article characteristics, extracted causal evidence and thematically synthesised findings. (6) Stakeholder consultation-results were presented to a multidisciplinary focus group of six prescribing stakeholders to establish validity, relevance and mechanisms by which causes lead to errors in practice.Results68 articles were included. We identified six main causes of prescribing errors: children's fundamental differences led to individualised dosing and calculations; off-licence prescribing; medication formulations; communication with children; and experience working with children. Primary evidence clarifying causes was lacking.ConclusionsSpecific factors complicate prescribing for children and increase risk of errors. Primary research is needed to confirm and elaborate these causes of error. In the meantime, this review uses existing evidence to make provisional paediatric-specific recommendations for policy, practice and education.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Clinicians using clinical decision support (CDS) to prescribe medications have an obligation to ensure that prescriptions are safe. One option is to verify the safety of prescriptions if there is uncertainty, for example, by using drug references. Supervisory control experiments in aviation and process control have associated errors, with reduced verification arising from overreliance on decision support. However, it is unknown whether this relationship extends to clinical decision-making. Therefore, we examine whether there is a relationship between verification behaviors and prescribing errors, with and without CDS medication alerts, and whether task complexity mediates this. METHODS:A total of 120 students in the final 2 years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for patient scenarios using a simulated electronic prescribing system. CDS (correct, incorrect, and no CDS) and task complexity (low and high) were varied. Outcomes were omission (missed prescribing errors) and commission errors (accepted false-positive alerts). Verification measures were access of drug references and view time percentage of task time. RESULTS:Failure to access references for medicines with prescribing errors increased omission errors with no CDS (high-complexity: χ 2(1) = 12.716; p < 0.001) and incorrect CDS (Fisher's exact; low-complexity: p = 0.002; high-complexity: p = 0.001). Failure to access references for false-positive alerts increased commission errors (low-complexity: χ 2(1) = 16.673, p < 0.001; high-complexity: χ 2(1) = 18.690, p < 0.001). Fewer participants accessed relevant references with incorrect CDS compared with no CDS (McNemar; low-complexity: p < 0.001; high-complexity: p < 0.001). Lower view time percentages increased omission (F(3, 361.914) = 4.498; p = 0.035) and commission errors (F(1, 346.223) = 2.712; p = 0.045). View time percentages were lower in CDS-assisted conditions compared with unassisted conditions (F(2, 335.743) = 10.443; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION:The presence of CDS reduced verification of prescription safety. When CDS was incorrect, reduced verification was associated with increased prescribing errors. CONCLUSION:CDS can be incorrect, and verification provides one mechanism to detect errors. System designers need to facilitate verification without increasing workload or eliminating the benefits of correct CDS.

Dataset Information

A survey of the criteria for prescribing in cases of borderline refractive errors.

Publications

A survey of the criteria for prescribing in cases of borderline refractive errors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets