Search

Purpose: Although urgent primary eye care schemes exist in some areas of England, their current safety is unknown. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to quantify the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID‐19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES) across Luton, Bedford, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire and Harrogate. Methods: Consenting patients with acute onset eye problems who had accessed the service were contacted to ascertain what the optometrist's recommendation was, whether this worked, if they had to present elsewhere and how satisfied they were with the CUES. Results: A total of 27% (170/629) and 6.3% (28/445) of patients managed virtually and in person, respectively, did not have their acute eye problem resolved. Regression analysis revealed that patients who attended a face‐to‐face consultation were 4.66 times more likely to be correctly managed [Exp (β) = 5.66], relative to those solely managed virtually. Optometrists' phone consultations failed to detect conditions such as stroke, intracranial hypertension, suspected space occupying lesions, orbital cellulitis, scleritis, corneal ulcer, wet macular degeneration, uveitis with macular oedema and retinal detachment. Of referrals to hospital ophthalmology departments, in total, 19% were false‐positives. Patients, however, were typically very satisfied with the service. Uptake was associated with socioeconomic status. Conclusion: The present study found that a virtual assessment service providing optometrist tele‐consultations was not effective at resolving patients' acute‐onset eye problems. The range and number of pathologies missed by tele‐consultations suggests that the service model in the present study was detrimental to patient safety. To improve this, optometrists should follow evidence based guidance when attempting to manage patients virtually, or in person. For example, patients presenting with acute‐onset symptoms of flashing lights and/or floaters require an urgent dilated fundus examination. Robust data collection on service safety is required on an ongoing basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is very little published work on the visual needs of homeless people. This paper is the first study to investigate the visual needs of homeless people in the UK. Although similar work has been done in other countries, this study is unique because the United Kingdom is the only country with a National Health Service which provides free healthcare at the point of access. This study analysed the refractive status of the sample used, determined the demographics of homeless people seeking eye care and established if there is a need for community eye health with access to free spectacle correction in East London.Methods: This retrospective case study analysed the clinical records of 1,141 homeless people using the Vision Care for Homeless People services at one of their clinics in East London. All eye examinations were carried out by qualified optometrists and, where appropriate, spectacles were dispensed to patients. Data captured included age, gender, ethnicity and refractive error. Results were analysed using two-sample t-tests with Excel and Minitab.Results: Demographics of age, gender and ethnicity are described. Spherical equivalents (SE) were calculated from prescription data available for 841 clinic users. Emmetropia was defined as SE-0.50DS to +1DS, myopia as SE < -0.50DS, and hyperopia as SE > +1DS. The majority of clinic users were male (79.2 %, n = 923). Approximately 80 % (n = 583) of clinic users were white, 10 % (n = 72) were 'black', 4 % (n = 29) 'Asian' and the remaining 5.6 % (n = 40) were of 'mixed ethnicity' and 'other' groups. The mean age of females attending the clinic was significantly lower than that of males (45.9 years, SD = 13.8 vs' 48.4 years, SD = 11.8) when analysed using a two-sample t-test (t (317) = 2.44, p = 0.02). One third of service users were aged between 50-59 years. Myopia and hyperopia prevalence rates were 37.0 % and 21.0 % respectively. A total of 34.8 % of homeless people were found to have uncorrected refractive error, and required spectacle correction.Conclusions: This study has identified a high proportion of uncorrected refractive error in this sample and therefore a need for regular eye examinations and provision of refractive correction for homeless people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]