Analysis of Rating Appropriateness and Patient Outcomes in Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE: Using the RAND/UCLA methodology to create the appropriateness criteria, we assessed that the appropriate ratings in cataract surgery can be a better prognosis of outcomes in postoperative 12 months than uncertain or inappropriate ratings. In addition, we indentified the degree of the appropriate rating surgery associated with the outcome changes in postoperative 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients in this study were followed up prospectively in preoperative and postoperative 12 months periods. The 20 ophthalmologists in 14 hospitals were asked to refer about 20 patients who were scheduled to undergo cataract surgery from March and June of 1997. A multiple regression analysis was used to identify the degree of the appropriate surgery associated with the changes of outcomes. The outcomes were designed as the clinical and functional outcomes (visual acuity, visual function, satisfaction with vision, and satisfaction with overall care). RESULTS: The outcome changes of vision acuity (p < 0.001), vision function-14 (p < 0.001), and symptom score (p < 0.006) were significantly different between four appropriateness ratings (crucial, appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate). There was a trend that the appropriate rating surgeries were related to the successful change of the vision function (2.29, p = 0.015) and satisfaction with vision (3.84, p = 0.014) in 12 month postoperative period. CONCLUSION: The crucial or appropriate rating surgeries may indicate better outcomes than uncertain or inappropriate rating surgeries do. The appropriate rating surgeries were more closely related to functional outcome vision function, VF-14 and subjective outcome (satisfaction with vision) in postoperative 12 months than inappropriate rating surgeries.

Appropriateness Ratings in Cataract Surgery

This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of cataract surgery and identify the characteristics of patients and surgeons, clinical and functional outcomes, and surgical methods associated with appropriate cataract surgery. For this purpose, Korean cases of cataract surgery were rated as either 'necessity', 'appropriate', 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate', based on RAND/UCLA Ratings. For this assessment, the cases of 222 patients who underwent cataract surgery, on either one or both eyes, were studied. The surgeries were performed by 20 ophthalmologists practicing at one of fourteen medical institutions (university hospitals and general hospitals). Patients were interviewed and clinical data collected. The Doctors were questioned with self-entered questionnaire forms. The medical records were also examined to gain an understanding of the surgical process. The ratings were as follows: 30.6% (68 patients) of surgeries belonged to the bracket "necessity", 46.4% (103 patients) to "appropriate", 15.3% (34 patients) to "uncertain" and 7.7% (17 patients) to "inappropriate". In this study, "necessity" and "appropriate" were defined as "appropriate" (77.0%, 171 patients), and "uncertain" and "inappropriate" as "inappropriate" (23.0%, 51 patients). The low preoperative Snellen visual acuity and visual function, advanced age and male patients were associated with appropriate surgery. It is concluded that appropriate surgery was related to the clinical and functional outcomes (visual acuity and visual function) and patient characteristics (age and male).