28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of a minor eye conditions scheme delivered by community optometrists

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The establishment of minor eye conditions schemes (MECS) within community optometric practices provides a mechanism for the timely assessment of patients presenting with a range of acute eye conditions. This has the potential to reduce waiting times and avoid unnecessary referrals to hospital eye services (HES).

          Objective

          To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, impact on hospital attendances and patient satisfaction with a minor eye service provided by community optometrists.

          Methods

          Activity and outcome data were collected for 12 months in the Lambeth and Lewisham MECS. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was given to patients at the end of their MECS appointment. A retrospective difference-in-differences analysis of hospital activity compared changes in the volume of referrals by general practitioners (GPs) from a period before (April 2011–March 2013) to after (April 2013–March 2015) the introduction of the scheme in Lambeth and Lewisham relative to a neighbouring area (Southwark) where the scheme had not been commissioned. Appropriateness of case management was assessed by consensus using clinical members of the research team.

          Results

          A total of 2123 patients accessed the scheme. Approximately two-thirds of patients (67.5%) were referred by their GP. The commonest reasons for patients attending for a MECS assessment were ‘red eye’ (36.7% of patients), ‘painful white eye’ (11.1%) and ‘flashes and floaters’ (10.2%). A total of 64.1% of patients were managed in optometric practice and 18.9% were referred to the HES; of these, 89.2% had been appropriately referred. First attendances to HES referred by GPs reduced by 26.8% (95% CI −40.5% to −13.1%) in Lambeth and Lewisham compared to Southwark.

          Conclusions

          The Lambeth and Lewisham MECS demonstrates clinical effectiveness, reduction in hospital attendances and high patient satisfaction and represents a successful collaboration between commissioners, local HES units and primary healthcare providers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Expanding the role of community pharmacists: policymaking in the absence of policy-relevant evidence?

          Policies to expand the traditional role of community pharmacists have been implemented or at least considered in a number of countries, as advocated by academics, professional organizations, and governments. Such reforms come on the heel of pressing system-wide challenges. At a time of growing interest in evidence-based policymaking, what is the policy-relevant evidence base in support of this new expanded role for community pharmacists? An umbrella review was conducted to identify published systematic reviews of evidence on the effectiveness of community pharmacist interventions. Findings of the identified reviews were documented according to Pharmaceutical Care and Total Pharmacy Care models, and evaluated on the basis of internal and external validity. The internal validity of identified reviews was evaluated in terms of the comparability of populations, interventions, and outcomes. External validity was based on the reproducibility and generalizability of review findings. Thirty-three systematic reviews published since 2000 evaluated the evidentiary support for the expanded role of community pharmacists, which focuses on two primary objectives: (1) to encourage the effective, safe and appropriate use of medicines and (2) to promote the prevention and management of chronic diseases. The results of most systematic reviews were mixed, with unclear policy relevance. Important methodological drawbacks were found in terms of study identification and selection, and comparability of interventions and outcomes. In addition, the external validity of the findings was inconclusive on the basis of reproducibility and generalizability. There is inconclusive evidence in support of expanding the role of community pharmacists. This raises an important question: should the pharmacy profession only undertake tasks for which there is strong policy relevance with evidence of economic and public health benefits? In spite of this tension between the necessity to formulate new policies during a period of economic constraints and the level of corresponding evidence, several countries have begun entertaining policies to equip community pharmacists with patient-centered responsibilities. As implementing such expanded roles requires significant changes in the wider health care system, further research is needed to evaluate country-level policy developments. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patterns of ophthalmological complaints presenting to a dedicated ophthalmic Accident & Emergency department: inappropriate use and patients' perspective.

            To investigate the appropriateness of patients attending an Accident & Emergency (A&E) department of an eye hospital, identify reasons for inappropriate use and propose recommendations in improving the provision of ophthalmic A&E care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How do GPs diagnose and manage acute infective conjunctivitis? A GP survey.

              To determine GPs' diagnosis and management of acute infective conjunctivitis (AIC)-one of the commonest but least researched acute infections seen in primary care. A postal questionnaire survey of 300 GPs from two Health Authorities in Southern England. 236 (78%) GPs returned the questionnaire. 92% of those responding felt confident or very confident in the diagnosis of AIC. 95% usually prescribe topical antibiotics for AIC despite 58% stating that they thought at least half of the cases they see are viral in origin and only 36% believing that they could discriminate between bacterial and viral infection. There was considerable variability in GPs' use of individual signs to make the diagnosis of AIC (from 99% using eye discharge to 31% using conjunctival oedema) and in the features used to discriminate viral from bacterial infection (from 87% using type of discharge to 47% using amount of discharge). GPs rarely perform eye swabs or give patient information leaflets to patients with AIC. Most GPs still prescribe topical antibiotics for most cases of AIC-a condition where only half of the cases are likely to be due to a bacterial infection, and even bacterial infections are self-limiting. Further research is needed to explore the potential benefits and disadvantages of topical antibiotics, and to develop clinical or microbiological methods to help GPs to target antibiotic prescription.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                10 August 2016
                : 6
                : 8
                : e011832
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Public Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London , London, UK
                [2 ]Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Manchester, UK
                [3 ]Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London , London, UK
                [4 ]Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester , Manchester, UK
                [5 ]Ophthalmology Department, St Thomas’ Hospital , London, UK
                [6 ]Ophthalmology Department, King's College Hospital , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor J G Lawrenson; j.g.lawrenson@ 123456city.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-011832
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011832
                4985875
                27515757
                310ccc09-2e72-48bd-a22c-e9c696f15959
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 9 March 2016
                : 15 June 2016
                : 21 July 2016
                Categories
                Ophthalmology
                Research
                1506
                1718
                1704
                1703
                1701

                Medicine
                primary care
                Medicine
                primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article