Search

Background: The demand for acute eyecare exponentially outstrips capacity. The public lacks awareness of community eyecare services. Aim: To quantify the burden of acute eyecare on different healthcare service providers in a national population through prescribing and medicines provision by GPs, optometrists, and pharmacists, and provision of care by accident and emergency (A&E) services. A secondary aim was to characterise some of the drivers of this burden. Design and setting: A retrospective data-linkage study set in Wales, UK. Method: Analysis of datasets was undertaken from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (GP and A&E), the Eye Health Examination Wales service (optometry), and the Common Ailments Scheme (pharmacy) during 2017–2018. Results: A total of 173 999 acute eyecare episodes delivered by GPs (168 877 episodes) and A&E services (5122) were identified during the study. This resulted in 65.4 episodes of care per 1000 people per year. GPs prescribed a total of 87 973 653 prescriptions within the general population. Of these, 820 693 were related to acute eyecare, resulting in a prescribing rate of 0.9%. A total of 5122 eye-related and 905 224 general A&E attendances were identified, respectively, resulting in an A&E attendance rate of 0.6%. Optometrists and pharmacists managed 51.8% (116 868) and 0.6% (2635) of all episodes, respectively. Older females and infants of both sexes were more likely to use GP prescribing services, while adolescent and middle-aged males were more likely to visit A&E. GP prescribing burden was driven partially by economic deprivation, access to services, and health score. Season, day of the week, and time of day were predictors of burden in GP and A&E. Conclusion: Acute eyecare continues to place considerable burden on GP and A&E services in Wales, particularly in urban areas with greater economic deprivation and lower overall health. This is likely to increase with a rapidly ageing population. With ongoing pathway development to better utilise optometry and pharmacy, and improved public awareness, there may be scope to change this trajectory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research is the core of evidence‐based practice across all healthcare, in order to ensure optimum patient care. The College of Optometrists is a national standard setting institution for optometric practice in the United Kingdom. However, the standards are only as good as the available evidence, and currently there is little evidence relating directly to optometric practice. The National Institute of Health and Care Research, the General Medical Council and The College of Optometrists, amongst others, have published research strategies describing ambitious plans to expand the scope of healthcare research. The aim of this article is to raise awareness of these government initiatives and consider how they may relate to optometric practice. To improve optometrist research engagement, we need to address the barriers to research and implement strategies to overcome them. There are many opportunities to support research, with different degrees of involvement, from signposting patients to research studies, supporting recruitment or collecting data for a multicentre clinical trial, as well as undertaking an individual research project. Healthcare research is changing and there is scope for more practice‐based research activities in optometry. Research should not be a solo endeavour but a multi‐disciplinary effort. Greater collaborations across all stakeholders, including primary care, secondary care, academia, regulators and industry is needed to make this possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bethany Higgins (City, University of London, UK) was awarded the prize for best ECR oral presentation and Allie Hexley (University of Oxford, UK) received an "honourable mention". We were also very lucky to secure two incredible speakers for our keynote sessions, the first of which was Professor David Elliott from the University of Bradford (UK). The British Congress of Optometry and Vision Science (BCOVS) is an annual conference, typically hosted at one of the UK universities that house an optometry degree course, and who are members of the Optometry Schools Council. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES. Methods: Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De‐identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. Results: A total of 459 de‐identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%–8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%–76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%–49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%–62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%–21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%–97% and were accurate in 81%–98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%–97% and was meaningful in 94%–99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR. Conclusions: In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]