Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England.

OBJECTIVES: This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England. METHODS: Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from six practices in Scotland and England. If no reply was found, replies/records were copied from HES records. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited against established standards, evaluating whether referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. RESULTS: From 905 de-identified referrals, RR ranged from 2.6 to 8.7%. From COs' perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 37 to 84% (Scotland) and 26 to 49% (England). A total of 88-96% of referrals (Scotland) and 63-76% (England) were seen in the HES. Adjusting for cases when it is reasonable to expect replies, RRR becomes 45-92% (Scotland) and 38-62% (England) with RRR significantly greater in Scotland (P = 0.015). Replies were copied to patients in 0-21% of cases. Referrals were to the appropriate service and judged necessary in ≥90% of cases in both jurisdictions. Accuracy of referral ranged from 89 to 97% (Scotland) and 81 to 98% (England). The reply addressed the reason for referral in 94-100% of cases (Scotland) and 93-97% (England) and was meaningful in 95-100% (Scotland) and 94-99% (England). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interdisciplinary joint statement on sharing patient information, this audit highlights variable standard of referrals and deficits in replies to the referring COs, with one exception in Scotland. Replies from HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

IMAGE ANALYSIS OF OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY SCANS TO EXPLORE ESTABLISHED AND NOVEL CHOROIDAL FEATURES IN PATIENTS WITH CENTRAL SEROUS CHORIORETINOPATHY.

PURPOSE: To explore the characteristics of choroidal tissue in patients with and without central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) using an automated system of image analysis to determine known and novel metrics. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control analysis of optical coherence tomography scans of patients seen at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, UK, comparing patients with active CSC to an age-matched and gender-matched group with no CSC using a purpose-built automated system of image analysis. The expert system segments and measures established and novel features of choroid using a combination of thresholding, noise removal, and morphological techniques. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were included in this study, with 40 included in the group with CSC and 32 patient controls with no CSC. There were significant increases from normal to CSC of median choroidal vascularity index, 54.7(median absolute deviation = 9.8) to 61.2(4.3), and all choroidal thickness indices including maximum depth, from 249.0(90.1) µm to 372.3(80.3) µm. For novel measures, there was a significant increase in tissue entropy from 6.68(0.28) to 6.95(0.17) and area of the largest five vessels from 6.28(3.04) mm2 to 9.10(3.49) mm2. The ratio of vessel lumen to stromal tissue intensity was conversely significantly reduced from 0.674(0.11) in normal patients to 0.59(0.06) in CSC. CONCLUSION: The automated system of choroidal analysis expands on the utility of known measures and introduces novel metrics. These findings contribute pathophysiological insights and metrics for further assessment and research on conditions affecting choroidal tissue.

Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in England.

PURPOSE: In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES. METHODS: Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 459 de-identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%-8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%-76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%-49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%-62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%-21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%-97% and were accurate in 81%-98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%-97% and was meaningful in 94%-99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.