Abstract
Purpose To assess the effect of an intervention comprising training in optic disc assessment, explicit referral criteria and ophthalmologist feedback on referred patients, on the number of optometrist referrals for suspected glaucoma seen at a referral site and the positive predictive value of those referrals.
Methods Optometric practices routinely referring to the Ealing Hospital Eye Clinic were randomly divided into two groups taking into consideration those practices, which shared an optometrist (a cluster) and the number of optometrist days worked per week. One group of practices acted as controls, while the other practices were invited to receive the intervention. Data on 397 new patients referred and presenting to Ealing Hospital with suspected glaucoma were collected over a 20-month period. The data on patients who had failed to attend their appointment were collected over 7 months of this period. The number of referrals seen, the positive predictive value of those referrals, and the attendance rate were calculated. Optometrist's opinions of the intervention were assessed qualitatively. Data relating to optometrist compliance with the intervention were also collected.
Results The number of glaucoma referrals presenting to Ealing Hospital from the intervention practices was almost double that from the control practices (210 vs 119). When cluster randomisation, the number of optometrist days per cluster and the number of assessed referrals in the preintervention period are taken into consideration, it is estimated that the intervention is associated with a 52% increase in the number of referrals reaching Ealing Hospital. However, the design effect resulting from the cluster randomisation was unexpectedly high (of the order of 13–14) and so the confidence intervals around the estimate of 52% are very wide (95% c.i. 35% decrease to 253% increase, P=0.34). There was no evidence of an association between optometrist compliance with the intervention and the number of referrals seen at Ealing Hospital. The positive predictive value (PPV) of referrals was similar for the intervention (0.49 (95% c.i. 0.42, 0.55)) and control groups (0.46 (95% c.i. 0.33, 0.60)). Optometrist opinions of the intervention were largely favourable. All expressed a willingness to participate in future programmes.
Conclusion A large difference in the number of referrals between the practice groups was observed. Since the PPV of referral was unchanged, the potential impact of the intervention in terms of numbers of new cases of glaucoma detected in the community is substantial. However, because of its large design effect, this trial does not provide conclusive evidence of an impact of the intervention on referral numbers. A considerably larger trial will be required to produce conclusive evidence of an effect.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R, Xian WX, Wright L, Courtney P . Prevalence of glaucoma in the west of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 17–21.
Evans JR . Causes of Blindness and Partial Sight in England and Wales 1990–1991 Studies on Medical and Population Subjects, No. 57. HMSO: London, 1995.
Bunce C, Evans J, Fraser S, Wormald R . BD8 certification of visually impaired people. Br J Opthalmol 1998; 82: 72–76.
Green J, Siddal H, Murdoch IE . Learning to live with glaucoma: a qualitative study of the diagnosis and impact of sight loss. Soc Sci Med 2002; 55: 257–267.
Sheldrick JH, Ng C, Austin DJ, Rosenthal AR . An analysis of referral routes and diagnostic accuracy in cases of suspected glaucoma. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1994; 1: 31–39.
Bell RWD, O’Brien C . Accuracy of referral to a glaucoma clinic. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997; 17(1): 7–11.
Newman DK, Anwar S, Jordan K . Glaucoma screening by optometrists: positive predictive value of visual field testing. Eye 1998; 12: 921–924.
Pooley JE, Frost EC . Optometrists’ referrals to the hospital eye service. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 16–24.
Theodossiades J, Murdoch IE . Positive predictive value of optometrist-initiated referrals for glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 62–67.
Vernon SA, Henry DJ . Do optometrists screen for glaucoma?. Eye 1989; 3: 131–134.
Vernon SA, Ghosh G . Do locally agreed guidelines for optometrists concerning the referral of glaucoma suspects influence referral practice?. Eye 2001; 15: 458–463.
Bell RWD, O’Brien C . The diagnostic outcome of new glaucoma referrals. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997; 17(1): 3–6.
Vernon SA . The changing pattern of glaucoma referrals. Eye 1998; 12: 854–857.
Wormald R, Rauf A . Glaucoma screening. J Med Screen 1995; 2: 109–114.
Murdoch IE, Theodossiades J . Is review of enriched populations the way forward for glaucoma case detection? Eye 2003; 17: 5–6.
Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1102–1110.
Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR . Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1661–1669.
Henson DB, Spencer AF, Harper R, Cadman EJ . Community refinement of glaucoma referrals. Eye 2003; 17: 21–26.
Quigley HA, Green WR . The histology of human glaucoma cupping and optic nerve damage: clinicopathologic correlation in 21 eyes. Ophthalmology 1979; 86: 1803–1830.
Theodossiades J, Murdoch IE . What optic disc parameters are most accurately assessed using the direct ophthalmoscope? Eye 2001; 15: 283–287.
Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K . Do practice guidelines guide practice? N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1306–1311.
Whittaker KW, Ikram K, Anderson DF, Kiel AW, Luff JL . Non-communication between ophthalmologists and optometrists. J Roy Soc Med 1999; 92: 247–248.
Ingram D, Culham L . Ophthalmologists and optometrists—interesting times?. Br J Opthalmol 2001; 85: 769–770.
Burns J, Barrett G, Murdoch IE . The experiences of patients with suspected glaucoma: a qualitative study. Ophthalmic Nurs J 2001; 5(3): 8–11.
Acknowledgements
We thank Helen Baker, Sara Mazhar, Kate Murphy, Jim Kirwan, Dan Rosser, Pak Sang Lee, all the optometrists who participated and our volunteers for their invaluable assistance with this study. This work was supported by the International Glaucoma Association.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Theodossiades, J., Murdoch, I. & Cousens, S. Glaucoma case finding: a cluster-randomised intervention trial. Eye 18, 483–490 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6700676
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6700676
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Outcomes of newly referred patients with suspected angle closure: do we need to redefine the clinical pathways?
Eye (2024)
-
Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England
Eye (2022)
-
Evaluation of the effectiveness of ophthalmic assistants as screeners for glaucoma in North India
Eye (2011)
-
Optometrists referrals for glaucoma assessment: a prospective survey of clinical data and outcomes
Eye (2010)
-
The influence of the new general ophthalmic services (GOS) contract in optometrist referrals for glaucoma in Scotland
Eye (2009)
