Search

Purpose: To survey paediatric eye care providers to identify current patterns of prescribing for hyperopia. Methods: Paediatric eye care providers were invited, via email, to participate in a survey to evaluate current age‐based refractive error prescribing practices. Questions were designed to determine which factors may influence the survey participant's prescribing pattern (e.g., patient's age, magnitude of hyperopia, patient's symptoms, heterophoria and stereopsis) and if the providers were to prescribe, how much hyperopic correction would they prescribe (e.g., full or partial prescription). The response distributions by profession (optometry and ophthalmology) were compared using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov cumulative distribution function test. Results: Responses were submitted by 738 participants regarding how they prescribe for their hyperopic patients. Most providers within each profession considered similar clinical factors when prescribing. The percentages of optometrists and ophthalmologists who reported considering the factor often differed significantly. Factors considered similarly by both optometrists and ophthalmologists were the presence of symptoms (98.0%, p = 0.14), presence of astigmatism and/or anisometropia (97.5%, p = 0.06) and the possibility of teasing (8.3%, p = 0.49). A wide range of prescribing was observed within each profession, with some providers reporting that they would prescribe for low levels of hyperopia while others reported that they would never prescribe. When prescribing for bilateral hyperopia in children with age‐normal visual acuity and no manifest deviation or symptoms, the threshold for prescribing decreased with age for both professions, with ophthalmologists typically prescribing 1.5–2 D less than optometrists. The threshold for prescribing also decreased for both optometrists and ophthalmologists when children had associated clinical factors (e.g., esophoria or reduced near visual function). Optometrists and ophthalmologists most commonly prescribed based on cycloplegic refraction, although optometrists most commonly prescribed based on both the manifest and cycloplegic refraction for children ≥7 years. Conclusion: Prescribing patterns for paediatric hyperopia vary significantly among eye care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Research suggests that there are challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children in England. This study explores the barriers and enablers to eye examinations for children under 5 years of age from the perspective of community optometrists in England. Methods: Optometrists working in community settings were invited to participate in virtual focus group discussions using an online platform based on a topic guide. The discussions were audio‐recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Themes were derived from the focus group data based on the study aim and research question. Results: Thirty optometrists participated in the focus group discussions. The overarching themes identified as barriers to eye examinations for young children in a community setting were as follows: 'Time and Money', 'Knowledge, Skills and Confidence', 'Awareness and Communication', 'Range of Attitudes' and 'Clinical Setting'. The key themes for enabling eye examinations for young children were as follows: 'Improving behaviour', 'Enhancing training and education', 'Enhancing eye care services', 'Raising awareness', 'Changes in professional bodies' and 'Balancing commercial pressures and health care'. Conclusion: Time, money, training and equipment are perceived by optometrists as key factors in providing an eye examination for a young child. This study identified a need for improved training and robust governance related to eye examinations for young children. There is a need for change within eye care service delivery such that all children, regardless of age and ability, are examined regularly, and by conducting these examinations, optometrists remain confident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Good vision during childhood is vital for visual, educational, and social development. Previous research highlights challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children. This study investigates the accessibility of primary eye care for young children with typical development and those with autism in England. Methods: A telephone survey was conducted using four hypothetical scenarios (a child aged 1, 3, 5 years and a 13‐year‐old with autism). Four hundred community optometric practices (100 different practices for each scenario) were contacted to explore the availability of an eye examination. The caller acted as a parent, asking about the availability of an eye examination for their child and raising concerns regarding the child. Key barriers and enablers to the accessibility of primary eye care were identified through an analysis of qualitative information. Results: Of the 400 practices, only three (<1%) stated that they do not perform eye examinations on children. Fifty‐six practices (14%) stated that they would examine a child at any age, the remainder (n = 341, 85%) specifying a minimum age at which they would perform eye examinations on children. Lack of 'communication' from the child and 'equipment' were identified as barriers to accessing eye care for young children. Eye care for children with autism was enabled by factors related to adaptability and appointment time. Conclusion: Our results suggest that communication and a lack of appropriate equipment for examining children are potential barriers to accessing primary eye care. No clear barriers were identified for an older child with autism. Eye examinations are more accessible for older children in these scenarios (aged 5 with typical development and 13 years with autism) than younger children (aged 1 and 3 years old). While the UK General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) terms do not permit contract holders to exclude categories of patients from a GOS eye exam, our findings suggest this is taking place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The prevalence of depression in people with low vision is high and often goes undiagnosed. There is the potential for those who provide low vision services to perform concurrent depression screening. However, prior training in depression identification and suitable referral pathways is required. The aims of this study were: (1) to assess the impact of a training programme on practitioners' confidence and behaviour in addressing depression in patients with low vision, and (2) to review the training programme and identify areas for further development. Methods: A convergent mixed methods approach was used. Questionnaires were completed by practitioners pre‐, immediately post‐ and 6 months post‐ training (n = 40) to assess practitioner confidence in approaching depression in patients with low vision. Qualitative interviews were performed with a subset of practitioners 6 months post‐training (n = 9). Additionally, routine data from the Low Vision Service Wales (LVSW) database was used to determine the change in the number of practitioners identifying depression in patients, and the change in the number of patients identified at risk of depression 6 months post‐training. Results: Of the 148 practitioners who completed low vision assessments pre‐ and post‐training, 28 (18.9%) documented risk of depression in their patients pre‐training, which increased substantially to 65 (43.9%) post‐training (p < 0.0001). Mixed methods analysis confirmed increased documentation of depressive symptoms by practitioners. Practitioner confidence increased following training, with 92.3% feeling more confident to approach emotional issues with patients and 92.2% intending to use the recommended screening tool to identify depression. Interviews provided insight into areas where confidence was still lacking. Quantitative questionnaires revealed that training content was considered appropriate by 91% of participants. Interviews confirmed these findings while expanding upon possibilities for programme improvement. Conclusions: Training for depression screening was found to be time‐efficient and acceptable for LVSW practitioners and shown to increase practitioner confidence in the identification of depression. Additionally, the programme changed behaviour, resulting in an increase in the identification of depression in patients with low vision. However, this is a complex topic and ongoing development is required to embed depression screening as an integral part of low vision services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the content of referrals to a hospital eye department and describe differences between referring clinician (optometrist or GP) and referral formats. Methods: A random sample of 433 new referrals to Bradford Royal Infirmary hospital eye service (HES) during 2007 and 2008 were retrospectively analysed. Results: Three hundred and eleven referrals (72%) were from optometric practice and 122 (28%) from general practice. Optometric referrals were mainly for cataract and posterior capsular opacification (27%), glaucoma or suspect glaucoma (20%) and diabetic retinopathy (10%). Conclusions: The proportion of referrals to the hospital eye service from optometrists appears to be increasing (1988: 39%, 1999: 48%, present study 72%). GPs mainly refer patients with anterior segment disorders, particularly lid lesions, based on direct observation and symptoms. Optometrists refer patients with a wide range of ocular diseases and include fundus observations and visual acuity measurements in their referrals. There is a need to inform optometrists of what content is required in a referral to the HES from GOS sight tests, at least for the common referral conditions such as age-related cataract and suspect open-angle glaucoma. Referral forms specifically designed for these commonly referred conditions are likely to improve referral quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]