Patient consultation survey in an ophthalmic outpatient department.

INTRODUCTION: Consultation methods differ between medical practitioners depending on the individual setting. However, the central tenet to the doctor-patient relationship is the issue of confidentiality. This prospective survey highlights patient attitudes towards consultation methods in the setting of an ophthalmic outpatient department. METHOD: Questionnaires were completed by 100 consecutive patients, who had been seen by an ophthalmologist in a single room, which had a joint doctor-patient consultation occurring simultaneously. RESULTS: Each question of all 100 questionnaires was completed. 58% of patients were not concerned about sharing a consultation room with another patient or doctor. However, this did not equate to the 49% of patients who were indifferent to discussing issues in the joint consultation room. The most common factor was the general issue of confidentiality. DISCUSSION: Ensuring total patient confidentiality may be deemed more necessary for certain medical specialties than for others, as seen in the practice of separate medical records in genitourinary medicine, for instance. However, with regard to patient consultations, the same level of confidentiality should be afforded across all specialties, and such factors should be borne in mind when planning outpatient clinics.

Emergency management of corneal injuries.

UNLABELLED: Corneal injuries account for a significant proportion of the ophthalmic workload of most emergency departments. Although the vast majority of cases are relatively minor, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management are vital to prevent potentially sight-threatening sequelae. We present a survey of corneal injury cases at a general emergency department. INTRODUCTION: Corneal injuries are very common in both the adult and paediatric population and account for a significant proportion of the workload of most emergency departments. This survey assesses management of corneal injury cases at a general emergency department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case study was performed of 100 patients consecutively diagnosed with a corneal abrasion by slit lamp examination at the emergency department of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London. Each case was assessed to determine documentation of set criteria including visual acuity (VA), treatment and grade of examiner. RESULTS: The commonest cause of injury was direct minor trauma (64% of cases) with contact lens related problems accounting for 12% of presentations. VA was documented correctly in 85 adult patients (90.4% of adults), incorrectly in 2 cases, and not documented at all in 7 adults (7.4%). VA was not recorded in paediatric cases. All cases were treated with topical chloramphenicol drops although frequency of treatment ranged from 2 to 5 times daily and duration of treatment ranged between 3 and 5 days and for 7 days. 6 cases (6%) were assessed by an emergency nurse practitioner and the remaining number were seen by a casualty officer. DISCUSSION: VA must be accurately documented in all adult cases and should be documented in children of school age. A pinhole test should be performed in cases where VA is below 6/9. For analgesia, the use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, lubricants and bandage contact lens should be considered. Emergency nurse practitioners and general practitioners are ideally placed to follow-up uncomplicated cases.

Cataract surgery for junior ophthalmologists: are there enough cases?

AIM: To evaluate those cases that are suitable for operation by the junior ophthalmic trainee. METHODS: A prospective survey of 96 consecutive cases from five consultant lists for phacoemulsification over a 1 month period were preoperatively assessed for their suitability for the ophthalmic trainee using set criteria. A checklist was designed for all patients and criteria were marked with reference to suitability by a single examiner. The criteria chosen were arbitrary and had no bearing on a consultant's final decision to allow the junior to operate. RESULTS: Twenty-two out of 96 cases (22.9%) were deemed to be suitable for operation by a junior ophthalmologist (ie 4.4 cases per consultant list). The three main reasons for exclusion were first eye case, eye for operation with visual acuity 6/12 or better, and mature cataract. DISCUSSION: Using our results, if 4.4 cases were suitable for a junior ophthalmologist per month, this would allow for adequate exposure during the early stages of training. However, if the number of relatively straightforward cases on training lists were to be reduced owing to unavailability on hospital waiting lists, this could potentially compromise ophthalmic training in the future.