June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Quality of Referral Letters to a Tertiary Glaucoma Unit and adherence to Glaucoma Guidelines
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jason Cheng
    Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Laura Beltran-Agullo
    Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Graham Trope
    Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Yvonne Buys
    Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Jason Cheng, None; Laura Beltran-Agullo, None; Graham Trope, sensimed (F); Yvonne Buys, Alcon Surgical Incorporated (R), Alcon Surgical Incorporated (F), IMED (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 4405. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jason Cheng, Laura Beltran-Agullo, Graham Trope, Yvonne Buys; Quality of Referral Letters to a Tertiary Glaucoma Unit and adherence to Glaucoma Guidelines. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4405.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To assess the quality of glaucoma referral letters in relation to current guidelines and discuss the impact of inter physician communication quality in glaucoma management

Methods: Prospective review of 200 consecutive referral letters to a tertiary glaucoma unit. Letters were assessed for content in relation to the Canadian Ophthalmological Society glaucoma guidelines and also other information that a specialist would require to make a glaucoma management decision.

Results: Out of 200 referrals, 92(46%) came from ophthalmologists, 84(42%) from optometrists, 20(10%) from family physicians & 4 from other. The most common reason for referral was for suspected diagnosis of glaucoma (37%) followed by assessment for progression/further treatment (25%), angle closure assessment (17%), transfer of care (10%), second opinion (6%) and secondary glaucoma (4%). Of the 73 referrals for suspected diagnosis of glaucoma, 34 were from optometrists, 28 from ophthalmologists & 11 from others. The 34 optometry referrals provided visual acuity (VA)(97%), intraocular pressure (IOP)(100%), disc assessment(88%) and visual fields (VF)(13%) much more frequently than the 28 referrals from ophthalmologists, whom 46% (p<0.001) provided VA, 64% (p<0.001) provided IOP, 75% (p=0.2) disc assessment and only 7% (p=0.006) enclosed visual fields. Of the 50 referrals for progression assessment or for consideration of surgery, 45 (90%) included the current IOP, 34 (68%) disc assessment, 42 (84%) current glaucoma therapy, 16 (32%) included a current VF and 8 (16%) provided previous VFs. Only 12 (24%) of these referrals included more than 10 of the 14 suggested information points in the Canadian Ophthalmological Society glaucoma guidelines, and 34% included less than 8 of the 14 points. Overall, 74% of the referral letters were deemed legible.

Conclusions: Our study shows that glaucoma referral letters rarely contain all the relevant information and ophthalmologists are particularly at fault. Previous visual fields and pre-treatment IOP can be invaluable in management planning and progression analysis. 34% of glaucoma referrals from optometrists and ophthalmologists contain half or less of the suggest information recommended by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Over a quarter of the referrals were at least partially illegible. Further education and perhaps implementation of a proforma may improve referral letter quality

Keywords: 460 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: health care delivery/economics/manpower • 465 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • 466 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×