ABSTRACT
Purpose: The study intends to evaluate the demographic and clinical profile of pediatric patients (0–18 years) attending six vision centers (VCs) of a tertiary eye care facility in south India. Methods: This is a cross?sectional observation study conducted at six major peripheral VCs of a tertiary eye care facility in South India from June 20 to Dec 20. All children presenting at the VCs under a base hospital (BH) in Pondicherry, whose parents gave consent were included. Data were entered by the ophthalmic assistants in the VC and cross checked by the principal investigator at the BH. Results: A total of 250 pediatric patients were brought to the VCs during the study period, predominantly males (60.8%), with a mean age of 8.2 ± 4.5 years (0– 18 years). Half of them were staying within 5 km from the VCs. Most children were escorted by their parents (88%), and the expenditure of travel to the VC was affordable for most of the parents (75%). Also, 53.6% of patients were in their primary school, while schooling had not started for 28% of children. Visual acuity (VA) could be assessed only for school?going children and older children due to lack of age?matched VA assessment tools. Most children (91.3%) had uncorrected VA better than or equal to 6/18 in the better eye, and approximately 3% had VA worse than 6/60. All patients had best corrected VA of 6/6–6/18 after cycloplegic refraction. Most children reported to the VC for allergic conjunctivitis (25%), followed by refractive error (13%) and squint (10.4%). Urgent referral to the BH was made for 47 children. Conclusion: Primary eye care in pediatric population?I (PREPP?I) showed that most children can be treated at the VCs and only one?fifth of the children require active intervention at higher referral centers. Further study on satisfaction of services provided for pediatric patients in these VCs and barriers of not reporting to the BH when referred are considered for the PREPP?II study
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The study was aimed at finding out the present pattern of referrals to the Pediatric Ophthalmology outpatient department (OPD) in a tertiary eye care hospital and thus identify the discrepancy of referral, if any, which would help to modify and enhance the practice guidelines. Methods: The study was conducted by retrospectively collecting data from all referral letters that were already uploaded in the Electronic Medical Report (EMR) against all patients from June 2019 to December 2019. All pediatric patients in the age group of 0–16 years were included in the study. The practicing field of referring clinicians was noted along with the maximum information that could be collected from the referral letter and were thus assessed for the quality, accuracy, and timely referral. Results: Out of 77 referrals received in the study period, six referral letters neither had any mention of the designation of the referring clinician nor any specific diagnosis or details. Thus, only 71 patients were included for further study. The referring clinicians were mainly ophthalmologists, pediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), and others (cardiologists, neurologists). Maximum patients were referred by ophthalmologists (76%) but visual acuity was noted only for 30% of these patients. Almost half of the referral diagnosis was accurate. Pediatrician referrals were found to be more detailed and précised. Conclusion: There is a need for a standardized hospital?specific format of referrals and basic training to primary care providers on some simple tests (Lights reflex tests) for identifying the “red flags” in pediatric eye examination and thus enhancing the quality and timely referral per se