What are the causes of non-tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided?

Jeremy Beesley, Christopher J Davey, David B Elliott
{"title":"What are the causes of non-tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided?","authors":"Jeremy Beesley,&nbsp;Christopher J Davey,&nbsp;David B Elliott","doi":"10.1111/opo.12961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate non-tolerance cases from several UK practices to determine their likely causes and how they might have been avoided.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patient complaint and refraction data were collected from non-tolerance recheck examinations. For one practice, clinical data were also collected retrospectively to investigate the quality of the eye examinations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data for 279 rechecks were gathered from 10 practices and a recheck frequency of 2.3% was found. The mean patient age was 60 (SD 16) years, with cylinder changes responsible for 38% of prescription-related causes of rechecks, overplusing or underminusing 26%, and underplusing or overminusing just 11%. An assessment of 242 recheck corrections found that 40% were unsatisfactory (e.g., failed to address initial or recheck symptoms, N = 45) and retrospective analysis of 217 case records showed many limitations (e.g., 61% or 28% recorded no uncorrected or habitual visual acuity (VA) at either initial examination or recheck).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given that overplus-underminus was a much bigger proportion of prescription-related cases than overminus-underplus (26% vs. 11%), the refraction mantra of \"maximum plus for maximum VA\" should be balanced by increased teaching of the problems of overplusing and underminusing, and the use of prescribing guidelines. In addition, continuing professional development regarding the basics of the recheck examination, refraction, visual acuity and prism determination is needed. Changes of oblique cylinders should be carefully considered in older patients as this is a common cause of non-tolerance. In addition, if the \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\" and related maxims had been applied to all patients who were asymptomatic at the original examination, one third of all non-tolerance cases could have been avoided. Finally, it would seem appropriate for practices to develop a system to deal better with non-tolerance cases. Perhaps an experienced clinician should examine all patients with non-tolerance and provide feedback to the original clinician.</p>","PeriodicalId":520731,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","volume":" ","pages":"619-632"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303957/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate non-tolerance cases from several UK practices to determine their likely causes and how they might have been avoided.

Methods: Patient complaint and refraction data were collected from non-tolerance recheck examinations. For one practice, clinical data were also collected retrospectively to investigate the quality of the eye examinations.

Results: Data for 279 rechecks were gathered from 10 practices and a recheck frequency of 2.3% was found. The mean patient age was 60 (SD 16) years, with cylinder changes responsible for 38% of prescription-related causes of rechecks, overplusing or underminusing 26%, and underplusing or overminusing just 11%. An assessment of 242 recheck corrections found that 40% were unsatisfactory (e.g., failed to address initial or recheck symptoms, N = 45) and retrospective analysis of 217 case records showed many limitations (e.g., 61% or 28% recorded no uncorrected or habitual visual acuity (VA) at either initial examination or recheck).

Conclusions: Given that overplus-underminus was a much bigger proportion of prescription-related cases than overminus-underplus (26% vs. 11%), the refraction mantra of "maximum plus for maximum VA" should be balanced by increased teaching of the problems of overplusing and underminusing, and the use of prescribing guidelines. In addition, continuing professional development regarding the basics of the recheck examination, refraction, visual acuity and prism determination is needed. Changes of oblique cylinders should be carefully considered in older patients as this is a common cause of non-tolerance. In addition, if the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and related maxims had been applied to all patients who were asymptomatic at the original examination, one third of all non-tolerance cases could have been avoided. Finally, it would seem appropriate for practices to develop a system to deal better with non-tolerance cases. Perhaps an experienced clinician should examine all patients with non-tolerance and provide feedback to the original clinician.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不容忍新眼镜的原因是什么?如何避免?
目的:调查非容忍的情况下,从几个英国的做法,以确定其可能的原因和如何他们可能已经避免。方法:收集无耐受复查患者的主诉和屈光资料。一种做法是回顾性收集临床资料,以调查眼科检查的质量。结果:10次复查279次,复查频率为2.3%。患者平均年龄为60岁(SD为16岁),药瓶变化导致复检的处方相关原因占38%,过量或不足26%,不足或过量仅占11%。对242例复检矫正的评估发现,40%不令人满意(例如,未能解决初始或复检症状,N = 45),对217例病例记录的回顾性分析显示了许多局限性(例如,61%或28%的患者在初始检查或复检时均未记录未矫正或习惯性视力(VA))。结论:考虑到处方相关病例中过度加减的比例比过度减减的比例要大得多(26%对11%),应该通过增加对过度和不足问题的教学以及处方指南的使用来平衡“最大加最大VA”的折射咒语。此外,还需要在复检、屈光、视力和棱镜测定等基础知识方面进行持续的专业发展。老年患者应仔细考虑斜椎体的改变,因为这是导致不耐受的常见原因。此外,如果在最初的检查中对所有无症状的患者都适用“如果它没有破裂,不要修理它”和相关格言,则可以避免三分之一的非耐受性病例。最后,对于实践来说,开发一个系统来更好地处理非容忍情况似乎是合适的。也许经验丰富的临床医生应该检查所有无耐受性的患者,并向原临床医生提供反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信