The quality, accuracy and appropriateness of UK optometric age-related macular degeneration referrals.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Corinne Fulcher, Christopher Davey, Jonathan Denniss
{"title":"The quality, accuracy and appropriateness of UK optometric age-related macular degeneration referrals.","authors":"Corinne Fulcher, Christopher Davey, Jonathan Denniss","doi":"10.1111/opo.13455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Little is known about the quality of optometrists' referrals to secondary care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), despite the need for timely intervention. We analysed the content and accuracy of optometrists' referrals for nAMD. Adherence to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed as secondary measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Optometric referrals to a specialist macular treatment centre in Bradford, United Kingdom, between March 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively analysed and compared with subsequent electronic medical records. Data were extracted on legibility, reason for referral, patient and optometrist demographics, visual acuity, reported signs and symptoms, patient diagnosis and patient outcomes. Binomial logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether signs or symptoms noted in the referral were associated with subsequent nAMD diagnosis in secondary care and whether optometrist gender or experience influenced nAMD referral accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all 394 referrals analysed, 256 were for nAMD. Referral accuracy for nAMD was 39.8% (95% CI [34.0%, 45.9%]), with the most common reason for misdiagnosis being dry AMD. However, 76.8% of patients referred for suspected nAMD were either treated in secondary care or observed over multiple visits. 20% of suspected nAMD patients were seen within the NICE recommended 14-day window pre-COVID, dropping to 5% during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Visual acuity was most strongly associated with nAMD diagnosis (χ<sup>2</sup>(1) = 13.71, p < 0.001) followed by macular haemorrhage (χ<sup>2</sup>(1) = 5.89, p = 0.02). Neither optometrist gender nor experience was significantly associated with confirmed nAMD. Legibility of referrals was 91-95% for patient details and 94-97% for the referring optometrist.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the overall quality and legibility of optometrists' macular referrals to secondary care were of a high standard, the diagnostic accuracy of nAMD was below 40%. Referred visual acuity was the main sign/symptom associated with confirmed nAMD diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":19522,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13455","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Little is known about the quality of optometrists' referrals to secondary care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), despite the need for timely intervention. We analysed the content and accuracy of optometrists' referrals for nAMD. Adherence to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed as secondary measures.

Methods: Optometric referrals to a specialist macular treatment centre in Bradford, United Kingdom, between March 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively analysed and compared with subsequent electronic medical records. Data were extracted on legibility, reason for referral, patient and optometrist demographics, visual acuity, reported signs and symptoms, patient diagnosis and patient outcomes. Binomial logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether signs or symptoms noted in the referral were associated with subsequent nAMD diagnosis in secondary care and whether optometrist gender or experience influenced nAMD referral accuracy.

Results: Across all 394 referrals analysed, 256 were for nAMD. Referral accuracy for nAMD was 39.8% (95% CI [34.0%, 45.9%]), with the most common reason for misdiagnosis being dry AMD. However, 76.8% of patients referred for suspected nAMD were either treated in secondary care or observed over multiple visits. 20% of suspected nAMD patients were seen within the NICE recommended 14-day window pre-COVID, dropping to 5% during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Visual acuity was most strongly associated with nAMD diagnosis (χ2(1) = 13.71, p < 0.001) followed by macular haemorrhage (χ2(1) = 5.89, p = 0.02). Neither optometrist gender nor experience was significantly associated with confirmed nAMD. Legibility of referrals was 91-95% for patient details and 94-97% for the referring optometrist.

Conclusions: Although the overall quality and legibility of optometrists' macular referrals to secondary care were of a high standard, the diagnostic accuracy of nAMD was below 40%. Referred visual acuity was the main sign/symptom associated with confirmed nAMD diagnosis.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
13.80%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, first published in 1925, is a leading international interdisciplinary journal that addresses basic and applied questions pertinent to contemporary research in vision science and optometry. OPO publishes original research papers, technical notes, reviews and letters and will interest researchers, educators and clinicians concerned with the development, use and restoration of vision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信