Exploring glaucoma awareness and the utilization of primary eye care services: community perceived barriers among elderly African Caribbeans in Chapeltown, Leeds

Ophthalmic emergencies presenting to the emergency department at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

BACKGROUND

Community-based optometry services are increasingly used as a primary resource for patients with acute eye problems. The Eye Health Examination Wales (EHEW) is an example of one such established scheme. The aim of the project was to show how the aforementioned pathway has affected the presentation of ocular conditions to a general emergency department and the eye casualty department at the same hospital.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected prospectively over a one-month period. The records of 100 consecutive patients with ocular pathology presenting to a general emergency department were analysed. Numbers were also obtained for the number of patients seen under the EHEW scheme by community optometrists for the same period. The notes of patients referred to ophthalmology or back out to the community optometry scheme were followed to monitor for re-attendance in either setting.

RESULTS

Eighty-five per cent of patients were walk-in cases. The most common diagnosis made in the emergency department was 'no abnormality found' in 37 per cent. Eighty per cent of all conditions were discharged from the emergency department. Fifteen per cent of all cases, mainly foreign body-related, were followed up in the emergency eye clinic and 10 per cent were sent to EHEW for follow-up. No cases re-presented to a hospital service at a later date.

CONCLUSION

At least 37 per cent of emergency department cases could have been potentially avoided had the patient presented to the EHEW scheme. The pathway for patients to be sent from the emergency department to an EHEW optometrist does not appear to delay presentation to an ophthalmologist thereafter. Further promotion of the EHEW service is needed to change patient behaviours and reduce avoidable attendance to overstretched emergency departments.

Advanced glaucoma at diagnosis: current perspectives

Presentation with advanced glaucoma is a significant risk factor for lifetime blindness. The asymptomatic nature of glaucoma, particularly in early disease, means that substantial vision loss in one eye does not always translate into a perceptible loss of visual function. This, along with the lack of an effective screening strategy, contributes to late presentation. Those most at risk of presenting with advanced glaucoma have asymptomatic high intraocular pressure (IOP), no family history of glaucoma, are socially disadvantaged, and do not attend sight testing. Patients with glaucoma may have impaired functionality for daily activities, such as reading, walking and driving. Quality of life measures have shown this to be significantly worse in patients with more severe visual field loss, particularly if bilateral. In addition, quality of life decreases faster with further bilateral visual field loss when advanced visual field damage is present. Management of these patients requires disproportionally more resources than those with earlier disease. Both medical and surgical options are used as the initial approach to treat patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. The most recently published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines suggest that patients presenting with advanced disease should be offered trabeculectomy as a primary intervention. However, more evidence is required to determine the best initial management. The Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study (TAGS) is being conducted, comparing primary medical management with primary mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy for people presenting with advanced open-angle glaucoma. The results of TAGS will provide robust evidence for the most appropriate initial intervention.

Geographical inequalities in uptake of NHS funded eye examinations: Poisson modelling of small-area data for Essex, UK

Background

Small-area analysis of National Health Service (NHS)-funded sight test uptake in Leeds showed significant inequalities in access among people aged <16 or ≥60.

Methods

Data were extracted from 604 126 valid General Ophthalmic Services (GOS)1 claim forms for eye examinations for Essex residents between October 2013 and July 2015. Expected GOS1 uptake for each lower super output area was based on England annual uptake. Poisson regression modelling explored associations in GOS1 uptake ratio with deprivation.

Results

People aged ≥60 or <16 living in the least deprived quintile were 15% and 26%, respectively, more likely to have an NHS funded eye examination than the most deprived quintile, although all are equally entitled. GOS1 uptake is higher in the more deprived quintiles among 16-59-year old, as means tested social benefits are the main eligibility criteria in this age-group. Inequalities were also observed at local authority level.

Conclusions

Inequalities in access among people ≥60 years were not as large as those reported in Leeds, although inequalities in <16-year old were similar. However, demonstrable inequalities in this data set over a longer time period and a larger and more diverse area than Leeds, reinforce the argument that interventions are needed to address eye examination uptake inequalities.

Distribution of optometric practices relative to deprivation index in Scotland

Background

The UK National Health Service aims to provide universal availability of healthcare, and eye-care availability was a primary driver in the development of the Scottish General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) model. Accordingly, a relatively equal distribution of optometry practices across socio-economic areas is required. We examined practice distribution relative to deprivation.

Methods

672 practices were sampled from nine Health Boards within Scotland. Practices were assigned a deprivation ranking by referencing their postcode with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) tool (Scottish Executive National Statistics: General Report. 2016).

Results

Averaged across Health Boards, the share of practices for the five deprivation quintiles was 25, 33, 18, 14 and 11% from most to least deprived area, respectively. Although there was some variation of relative practice distribution in individual Health Boards, 17 of the 45 regions (nine Health Boards, five quintiles) had a close balance between population and share of practices. There was no clear pattern of practice distribution as a function of deprivation rank. Analysis revealed good correlation between practice and population share for each Health Board, and for the combined data (R² = 0.898, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Distribution of optometry practices is relatively balanced across socio-economic areas, suggesting that differences in eye-examination uptake across social strata are unrelated to service availability.

Improving eye health using a child-to-child approach in Bariadi, Tanzania

Purpose: Vision Champions (VC) are children trained to perform simple eye health screening and share eye health messages among their community. Our objectives were to assess the ability of VC in identifying and referring children and the community with refractive error and obvious ocular disease and to assess the change in knowledge and practice of eye healthseeking behaviour of the community 3 months after the introduction of the Vision Champion Programme.Methods: We purposively sampled 600 households and interviewed 1051 participants in two phases with a close-ended questionnaire. The numbers of children screened, referred by the VC and those who attended the Vision Centre were recorded. The percentage of people who answered the questions correctly were compared between Phase 1 (P1) and Phase 2 (P2).Results: The VC shared their eye health messages with 6311 people, screened 7575 people’s vision and referred 2433 people for further care. The community were more aware that using eye ointment not prescribed by doctors (P1 = 58.96% vs. P2 = 72.75%) can lead to blindness. Participants were more aware that they should not administer eye drops in stock (P1 = 44.18% vs. P2 = 61.37%) or received from a friend or relative (P1 = 53.23% vs. P2 = 72.35%) if their eyes are red and painful.Conclusion: Children have the potential to effectively share eye health messages and conduct simple vision screening for their families and peers. Efforts are needed to sensitise the community to improve the referral or follow-up rate.

Addressing inequalities in eye health with subsidies and increased fees for General Ophthalmic Services in socio-economically deprived communities: a sensitivity analysis

OBJECTIVES

Poor knowledge of eye health, concerns about the cost of spectacles, mistrust of optometrists and limited geographical access in socio-economically deprived areas are barriers to accessing regular eye examinations and result in low uptake and subsequent late presentation to ophthalmology clinics. Personal Medical Services (PMS) were introduced in the late 1990 s to provide locally negotiated solutions to problems associated with inequalities in access to primary care. An equivalent approach to delivery of optometric services could address inequalities in the uptake of eye examinations.

STUDY DESIGN

One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses.

METHODS

Variations in assumptions were included in the models for equipment and accommodation costs, uptake and length of appointments. The sensitivity analyses thresholds were cost-per-person tested below the GOS1 fee paid by the NHS and achieving break-even between income and expenditure, assuming no cross-subsidy from profits from sales of optical appliances.

RESULTS

Cost per test ranged from £ 24.01 to £ 64.80 and subsidy required varied from £ 14,490 to £ 108,046. Unused capacity utilised for local enhanced service schemes such as glaucoma referral refinement reduced the subsidy needed.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to support the financial viability of primary eye care in socio-economically deprived communities, income is required from additional subsidies or from sources other than eye examinations, such as ophthalmic or other optometric community services. This would require a significant shift of activity from secondary to primary care locations. The subsidy required could also be justified by the utility gain from earlier detection of preventable sight loss.

Geographical inequalities in uptake of NHS-funded eye examinations: small area analysis of Leeds, UK

BACKGROUND

Preventable sight loss is an indicator within the Public Health Outcome Framework 2013-2018 for England. Routinely available optometric data do not permit small area analysis of access inequalities.

METHODS

Data were extracted from 17 680 General Ophthalmic Services (GOS1) claim forms for eye examinations conducted in Leeds during February and March 2011. The expected number of GOS1 uptake for each lower super output area was based on the GOS1 national annual uptake. A Poisson regression model was used to explore associations in the GOS1 uptake ratio with deprivation and gender.

RESULTS

People aged 60 or over or under 16 living in the least deprived quintile are 71 and 23%, respectively, more likely to have an NHS-funded eye examination than someone in that age group in the most deprived quintile, although all are equally entitled. Uptake is higher in the more deprived quintiles among 16-59 year olds, as means tested social benefits are the main eligibility criteria in this age group. There were no statistically significant gender differences in uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions are needed to address eye examination uptake inequalities. However, in order to better inform commissioning and planning eye care services more complete data with additional detail are required. GOS1 forms ought to be submitted electronically linked to additional demographic and clinical data to allow public health analysis. Ideally, private eye examination data should also be captured.

Why don't younger adults in England go to have their eyes examined?

PURPOSE

Most research on attitudes to eye health has focussed on older people, reflecting the higher prevalence of eye diseases in older age groups. Little is known about younger people's attitudes to eye health. This paper explores young adults understanding of eye health and the purpose of eye examinations and the reasons why they do or do not attend for eye examinations. The aim is to provide evidence to inform policy on recommendations relating to eye health for individuals at low risk of visual impairment.

METHODS

Six focus-group meetings were held in Leeds with 43 people aged 18-35 (mean age 22 years). Focus group participants were recruited using a snowballing approach from an initial group of young adults. Focus groups were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was used.

RESULTS

Children who wore spectacles were often bullied. As people grew up it became more socially acceptable to wear spectacles. Practicalities, aesthetics and fashion were important issues. Knowledge about eye disease and the eye examination were generally poor. Many claimed to value vision, but recognised that young people do not have eye examinations as often as they should. Eye examinations were only perceived to be needed for younger people experiencing problems or to update prescriptions. Eye health was seen as issue for older people. Some had no idea or were shocked about how much spectacles cost. Optometrists were seen differently to other healthcare professionals. The retail aspect of optometry was seen as too dominant. More information was wanted from the NHS on eye health.

CONCLUSION

While young adults are at low risk of sight threatening disease, many do benefit from correction of refractive error. There is an argument for reducing the recommended frequency of eye examinations for low risk individuals from the 2 years currently advised. Nevertheless, young adults need to be made more aware of eye health issues, so that optometrists are seen as more than somewhere that sell spectacles. Increasing awareness of eye health in younger adulthood will also be important to ensure that services are appropriately accessed as they get older.

Improving access to optometry services for people at risk of preventable sight loss: a qualitative study in five UK locations

Background

Reducing preventable sight loss is an increasing priority for public health and health care providers. We examined the factors affecting people's use of optometry services in population groups at increased risk of sight loss.

Methods

This is a qualitative study in five UK locations. In England, participants were from the Pakistani and Black Caribbean communities; in Scotland from the Pakistani community; and in Northern Ireland and Wales from white socio-economically deprived communities. Thirty-four focus groups were conducted (n = 289). The study included people who attend optometry services and people not engaged with services.

Results

Barriers to access included limited awareness of eye health and eye disease, concern about the cost of spectacles and the appropriateness of optometry in a commercial setting. Attendance at the optometrist was primarily symptom led. A positive previous experience or continuing relationship with the optometrist helped to alleviate the barriers and promote attendance.

Conclusion

Addressing the disparity between the broader messages about eye health and the current perception of the function of optometry could help improve access to services. Uptake may be improved through the co-production of interventions that better resonate with local communities. Non-retail service delivery options should be explored.