OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ophthalmic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary care (PC). DESIGN: Crossover observation study. SETTING: Hellín Health Centre (Albacete). PATIENTS: 137 diabetics selected at random, excluding pregnant women and children under 14. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The variables of age, sex, type of diabetes (DM1/DM2), years of evolution, ophthalmic control and appearance of diabetic retinopathy (DR) were studied. Mean age was 68.5 +/- 10.9 years. 52% were women (n = 72). 88% had DM2 (n = 121). Time of evolution from diagnosis was < 5 years in 46% (n = 63), 6-10 years in 23% (n = 32), 11-15 years in 14% (n = 19), > 15 years in 5% (n = 7) and nothing was recorded for 12% (n = 16). 41% (n = 56) of the patients had not had an ophthalmic evaluation. Of the 59% (n = 81) referred to the ophthalmology out-clinic (OOC), 65 patients followed recommendations of the Spanish Society of Retina and Vitreous Humour, and 16 were referred for other reasons, of which cataracts was the most common eye pathology. Of these 81 patients referred to the OOC, 29% did not have DR (n = 23), and 44% did (n = 36). Of this 44%, 14 were light, 15 moderate, 3 severe and 4 proliferating cases. The reports were not sent back to PC in 27% of cases (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic referral in PC is still deficient for a large number of DM patients. DR of varying degrees was detected in a high number of cases who did have an ophthalmic check-up. Communication between PC and ophthalmic care concerning diabetic patients must improve.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ophthalmic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in primary care (PC). DESIGN: Crossover observation study. SETTING: Hellín Health Centre (Albacete). PATIENTS: 137 diabetics selected at random, excluding pregnant women and children under 14. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The variables of age, sex, type of diabetes (DM1/DM2), years of evolution, ophthalmic control and appearance of diabetic retinopathy (DR) were studied. Mean age was 68.5 +/- 10.9 years. 52% were women (n = 72). 88% had DM2 (n = 121). Time of evolution from diagnosis was < 5 years in 46% (n = 63), 6-10 years in 23% (n = 32), 11-15 years in 14% (n = 19), > 15 years in 5% (n = 7) and nothing was recorded for 12% (n = 16). 41% (n = 56) of the patients had not had an ophthalmic evaluation. Of the 59% (n = 81) referred to the ophthalmology out-clinic (OOC), 65 patients followed recommendations of the Spanish Society of Retina and Vitreous Humour, and 16 were referred for other reasons, of which cataracts was the most common eye pathology. Of these 81 patients referred to the OOC, 29% did not have DR (n = 23), and 44% did (n = 36). Of this 44%, 14 were light, 15 moderate, 3 severe and 4 proliferating cases. The reports were not sent back to PC in 27% of cases (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic referral in PC is still deficient for a large number of DMpatients. DR of varying degrees was detected in a high number of cases who did have an ophthalmic check-up. Communication between PC and ophthalmic care concerning diabeticpatients must improve.