Systematic review of the appropriateness of eye care delivery in eye care practice

Ho, Kam Chun; Stapleton, Fiona; Wiles, Louise; Hibbert, Peter; Alkhawajah, Sally; White, Andrew; Jalbert, Isabelle

doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4493-3

BMC Health Services Research

Table 2 Appropriateness of eye care by domain of care. Numbers are percentage of encounters with appropriate care (number of quality indicators). If more than one quality indicator was assessed, the percentage of encounters with appropriate care is presented as a range of percentage. NZ = New Zealand, A&E = accident and emergency, N/A = not applicable as no specific timing was measured

From: Systematic review of the appropriateness of eye care delivery in eye care practice

Country	Year	Health Practitioner	Timing	Domain of care						Author (reference)
Country	Year	Health Practitioner	Timing	History taking	Physical examination	Management	Recall period	Referral	Patient education	Author (reference)
Glaucoma
UK	2013	Ophthalmologist	All visits (at least up to 17.5 years)		0,87% (1)^a					Fung et al. [26]
UK	2012	Optometrist	First visit		74–100% (6)	96% (1)				Chawla et al. [27]
		Optometrist	First follow-up visit	88% (1)	94–100% (3)		92% (2)
		Ophthalmologist	First visit		10–100% (6)	100% (1)
		Ophthalmologist	First follow-up visit	24% (1)	8–100% (3)		66–86% (2)
UK	2012	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					70% (1)^b 4–99% (6)^c		Khan et al. [29]
UK	2012	Optometrist	Results of interview	77% (1)	19–98% (4)					Theodossiades et al. [31]
UK	2012	Optometrist	First visit of standardised patient	41% (1)	3–100% (4)					Theodossiades et al. [31]
UK	2011	Ophthalmologist	N/A			23% (1)				Stead et al. [32]
UK	2009	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					27–100% (14)^c		Scully et al. [35]
UK	2012	Optometrist	First full visit		91–98% (1)	97% (1)		87% (1)2		Marks et al. [36]
UK	2011	Optometrist	All follow-up visits		96% (1)	99% (1)	93% (1)			Ho and Vernon [37]
UK	2011	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					25% (1)^b		Shah and Murdoch [38]
UK	2010	Optometrist	All visits			93% (1)	86% (1)			Syam et al. [39]
UK	2010	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					37% (1)^b 72–99% (3)^c		Lockwood et al. [40]
UK	2007	Optometrist	First visit			85% (1)				Azuara-Blanco et al. [41]
UK	2007	Ophthalmologist	First visit			83% (1)				Azuara-Blanco et al. [41]
UK	2006	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					45% (1)^b		Patel et al. [42]
UK	2006	Optometrist	All follow-up visit		62–98% (5)	72–97% (5)	79% (1)			Banes et al. [43]
UK	2006	Associate specialists	All follow-up visit		54–100% (5)	71–99% (5)	73% (1)			Banes et al. [43]
USA	2016	Ophthalmologist	All follow-up visits			68% (1)				Solano-Moncada et al. [45]
USA	2016	Ophthalmologist & optometrist	All visits within 2 years after glaucoma diagnosis		27–74% (2)					Elam et al. [46]
USA	2015	Resident ophthalmologist	Third (or more) follow-up visit	88% (1)	62–100% (5)	74% (1)				Zebardast et al. [48]
USA	2015	Faculty ophthalmologist	Third (or more) follow-up visit	100% (1)	87–100% (5)	100% (1)				Zebardast et al. [48]
USA	2013	Resident ophthalmologist	First follow-up visit	49–97% (5)	93–100% (4)	82–100% (6)	96–97% (2)	16% (1)	5% (1)	Ong et al. [50]
USA	2012	Ophthalmologist & optometrist	All visits within 3 years after glaucoma or glaucoma suspect diagnosis		12–34% (2)					Swamy et al. [51]
USA	2007	Ophthalmologist	First claim for a prostaglandin prescription		50–90% (5)	19% (1)	100% (1)		38% (1)	Quigley et al. [52]
USA	2006	Ophthalmologist	All visits within 5 years before surgery for glaucoma		49% (1)					Coleman et al. [54]
Australia & NZ	2015	Optometrist (Australia)	N/A	99% (1)	25–100% (10)					Zangerl et al. [56]
Australia & NZ	2015	Optometrist (NZ)	N/A	100% (1)	27–100% (10)					Zangerl et al. [56]
Australia & NZ	2008	Ophthalmologist	N/A		13–96% (4)					Liu [59]
Scotland	2015	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis BEFORE guidelines published					62% (1)^b 33–85% (3)^c		El-Assal et al. [61]
Scotland	2015	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis AFTER guidelines published					76% (1)^b 76–81% (3)^c		El-Assal et al. [61]
Scotland	2009	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma progression BEFORE guidelines published					18% (1)^b 2–94% (7)^c		Ang et al. [62]
Scotland	2009	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma progression AFTER guidelines published					32% (1)^b 24–93% (7)^c		Ang et al. [62]
Canada	2014	Ophthalmologist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					10–100% (16)^c		Cheng et al. [64]
Canada	2014	Optometrist	Referral letter for glaucoma diagnosis					7–100% (16)^c		Cheng et al. [64]
Germany	2008	Ophthalmologist	N/A			96% (1)				Vorwerk et al. [65]
Singapore	2008	Ophthalmologist	N/A		75–93% (2)					Ang et al. [67]
Diabetic retinopathy
Australia	2011	Optometrist	N/A					83–99% (2)^b		Slater and Chakman [69]
Australia	2011	Optometrist	N/A	43–96% (6)	23–89% (2)		6–98% (12)^d			Ting et al. [71]
Australia	2010	Ophthalmologist	N/A	41–55% (4)	49–90% (2)	56–94% (2)	38–71% (10)^d			Yuen et al. [72]
NZ	2012	Optometrist	Fundus screening visit					60% (1)^b		Hutchins et al. [74]
USA	2012	Ophthalmologist & optometrist	N/A		71% (1)					Chou et al. [76]
USA	2010	Resident ophthalmologist	First ever diabetic retinopathy examination	41–57% (5)	0–100% (7)	70–79% (2)	69–70% (2)		0–27% (3)	Tseng et al. [78]
Hong Kong	2016	General practitioner	N/A		33% (1)		27% (1)			Wong et al. [80]
Bahrain	2014	General practitioner at general practitioner clinic	All follow-up visits within previous 12 months		0% (1)^e					Al-Ubaidi et al. [82]
Bahrain	2014	General practitioner at diabetes care clinic	All follow-up visits within previous 12 months		87% (1)^e					Al-Ubaidi et al. [82]
Switzerland	2013	General practitioner	First hospitalisation		31% (1)^e					Burgmann et al. [84]
UK	2011	General practitioner	Second diabetic visit		71% (1)^e					Mc Hugh et al. [86]
Brazil	2007	General practitioner	N/A		34–87% (2)^e					Preti et al. [88]
Age-related Macular Degeneration
Italy	2016	Ophthalmologist	N/A			44% (1)				Parodi et al. [93]
Turkey	2015	Ophthalmologist	N/A			23% (1)				Muhammed et al. [95]
UK	2013	Ophthalmologist & optometrist	N/A	21–32% (2)		28–70% (5)			49% (1)	Lawrenson and Evans [100]
USA	2008	Ophthalmologist	N/A			76% (1)				Charkoudian et al. [103]
Cataract
UK	2011	Ophthalmologist	N/A			51–99% (3)				Gomaa and Liu [105]
UK	2009	Optometrist	Referral letter for cataract surgery					0–100% (10)^c		Park et al. [107]
UK	2009	General practitioner	Referral letter for cataract surgery					0–100% (10)^c		Park et al. [107]
UK	2006	Optometrist	Referral letter for cataract surgery					48% (1)^c		Lash et al. [109]
USA	2009	Resident ophthalmologist	Preoperative care visits for first cataract surgery	73–100% (4)	59–100% (9)	0–100% (9)				Niemiec et al. [111]
USA	2009	Resident ophthalmologist	All postoperative follow-up visits for first cataract surgery	14–78% (6)	77–100% (7)	98% (1)	98% (1)	43% (1)^b	98% (1)	Niemiec et al. [111]
Preventative eye care
UK	2009	Optometrist	First visit	95% (1)	0–100% (5)					Shah et al. [115]
UK	2009	Optometrist	First visit	26–87% (8)	24–99% (10)	29% (1)				Shah et al. [118]
UK	2008	Optometrist	First visit	1–100% (14)	59–100% (8)	14–80% (6)				Shah et al. [120]
Australia	2015	Optometrist	N/A	47–55% (2)		62–80% (2)				Downie and Keller [129]
Dry eye
Australia	2013	Optometrist	N/A		4–93% (3)					Downie et al. [132]
USA	2010	Ophthalmologist	Initial diagnosis visit BEFORE guidelines revised	6–99% (12)	6–100% (12)	5–90% (5)		48% (1)^b	47–89% (3)	Lin et al. [134]
USA	2010	Ophthalmologist	Initial diagnosis visit AFTER guidelines revised	6–100% (16)	6–100% (13)	0–100% (7)		33% (1)^b	33–89% (4)	Lin et al. [134]
All ocular conditions at A&E
UK	2007	Optometrist	First visit					91% (1)		Hau et al. [135]
Amblyopia
USA	2013	Ophthalmologist	Initial visit			12–24% (2)				Jin et al. [138]
Esotropia
USA	2010	Ophthalmologist	Initial esotropia evaluation	64% (4)^f	99.6% (6)^f	94% (4)^f			94% (2)^f	Gupta et al. [140]
USA	2010	Ophthalmologist		70% (4)^g	90% (6)^g	94% (4)^g			94% (4)^g	Gupta et al. [140]
Non-infectious uveitis
USA	2011	Ophthalmologist & rheumatologist	All visits since initial diagnosis			12–23% (2)				Nguyen et al. [142]

^aFung et al. [26] reported 0 and 87% compliance for frequency of visual fields examination against two sets of glaucoma guidelines, the European Glaucoma Society (EGS) [24] and the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines [25], respectively. ^bPercentage of appropriateness of referral to relevant health practitioners. ^cPercentage of appropriate content of the referral letters. ^d‘’Recall period’ and ‘referral’ were assessed by the same set of case vignettes [71, 72]. ^ePercentage of diabetic patients who visited general practitioners and were arranged a diabetic retinopathy screening by ophthalmologists. ^fMean appropriate care measured against guidelines published by American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) in 2002. Appropriate care was defined as documentation of 50% or more of the specific parameters listed for each quality indicator. ^gMean appropriate care measured against guidelines published by NICE in 2007. Appropriate care was defined as documentation of 50% or more of the specific parameters listed for each quality indicator

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com