Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
received:
17
12
2020
accepted:
28
07
2021
revised:
05
07
2021
pubmed:
8
8
2021
medline:
24
8
2022
entrez:
7
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34363046
doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01728-2
pii: 10.1038/s41433-021-01728-2
pmc: PMC8344323
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1754-1760Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ. 2014 Mar 19;348:g2084
pubmed: 24646722
J Public Health (Oxf). 2016 Sep;38(3):599-606
pubmed: 26076700
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011 Jan;31(1):23-8
pubmed: 21070302
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Jun 1;40(2):e171-e179
pubmed: 28633479
BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 Dec 07;15:172
pubmed: 26643710
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Dec;89(12):1663
pubmed: 16299155
Eye (Lond). 2010 May;24(5):881-7
pubmed: 19648892
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012 Nov;32(6):472-7
pubmed: 23009293
Eye (Lond). 2021 May;35(5):1496-1503
pubmed: 32681093
J Optom. 2016 Jul-Sep;9(3):158-65
pubmed: 26614021
Eye (Lond). 2004 May;18(5):483-90
pubmed: 15131679
Eye (Lond). 2001 Aug;15(Pt 4):458-63
pubmed: 11767019
J Optom. 2021 Oct-Dec;14(4):346-354
pubmed: 33967018
Surv Ophthalmol. 2018 May - Jun;63(3):406-436
pubmed: 29100897
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2018 Sep;38(5):550-561
pubmed: 30175473
Eye (Lond). 2021 Apr;35(4):1037-1040
pubmed: 32929183
J Optom. 2021 Jan - Mar;14(1):69-77
pubmed: 32327324
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 Jan;29(1):32-40
pubmed: 19154278
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003 Jan;23(1):21-3
pubmed: 12535053
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021 Mar;41(2):365-377
pubmed: 33354812
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 Jan;29(1):26-31
pubmed: 19154277
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999 Mar;19 Suppl 1:S16-24
pubmed: 10645396
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;89(9):1102-4
pubmed: 16113358