Primary eye care in pediatric population-I study (PREPP-I study): Demographic and clinical profile of pediatric patients treated in six major vision centers of a tertiary eye care facility in South India

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

Primary eye care in India – The vision center model

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan (GAP) 2014-19 emphasize providing Comprehensive Eye Care (CEC) using the health system approach to achieve Universal Eye Health Coverage (UEHC). An important aspect of CEC is Primary Eye Care (PEC). The scope of PEC varies significantly with primary health workers providing PEC in most parts of the developing world, whereas in developed nations PEC is provided by specialized personnel such as optometrists. This article focuses on delivery of PEC models in India, specifically through the vision center (VC) approach. VCs are part of a larger eye care network and provide PEC in remote rural areas of the country. The authors describe the how PEC is delivered in more than 300 VCs operated by six mentor hospitals in India under the Global Sight Initiative (GSI). Key factors compared include: The role of leadership; human resource planning, including recruitment and retention; service delivery; leveraging technology for planning and reaching key populations; financial sustainability; supply chain management; and quality and monitoring. It also discusses issues to be considered to strengthen VCs as we move ahead towards our collective goal of achieving UEHC and eliminating avoidable blindness.

Comparison of patient satisfaction with services of Vision Centers in rural areas of Andhra Pradesh, India.

Aim: To compare the satisfaction of patients with the services of Vision Center services (primary eye care) in large village (s) and small village (s) in rural settings in Andhra Pradesh state, India. Materials and Methods: We have administered standard questionnaires to randomly selected patients to assess patient satisfaction when assessing Vision Center Services. We used the Chi-square (P <0.05) to explore differences in satisfaction of patients with Vision Center services located in the large village (s) and small village (s) rural settings. Results: Vision Center patients at the large village (s) expressed higher levels of satisfaction (median 78%) than patients treated at the Vision Center at small village (s) (median 69%). The difference was statistically significant (Chi square P value ranging from <0.001 to 0.03) for all the items except two – ‘easy to identify vision center location’ and ‘spectacles dispensing time’ as compared to other (privately run optometry) facilities (Chi square P value=0.498 and 0.993 respectively). The location of the Vision Center, convenience of journey, ophthalmic technician’s behavior with patients, are some of the most important factors that determined the patient perception about Vision Center services. Conclusion: The overall satisfaction levels of the Vision Center experience at 78% and 69% were good. However, continual improvement is to be made in service time, staff performance, cost and quality of vision care, especially at more remote primary eye Care Centers.