T Y Y Lai1, V W Y Wong, G M Leung. 1. Hong Kong Eye Hospital, 147K Argyle Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China. tyylai@netvigator.com
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the proportion of interventions that are evidence based in the acute care unit of a regional eye hospital. METHODS: A prospective clinical audit was carried out at Hong Kong Eye Hospital in July 2002 to investigate the extent to which ophthalmic practices were evidence based. The major diagnosis and intervention provided were identified through chart review. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to assess the degree to which each intervention was based on current, best evidence. Each diagnosis intervention pair was accordingly analysed and graded. The level of best, current evidence supporting each intervention was graded and analysed. RESULTS: A total of 274 consecutive consultation episodes were examined. 22 cases were excluded since no diagnosis or intervention was made during the consultation. 108 (42.9%) patient interventions were found to be based on evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomised controlled trials (RCT). Evidence from prospective or retrospective observational studies supported the interventions in 86 (34.1%) patients. In 58 (23.0%) cases, no evidence or opposing evidence was found regarding the intervention. The proportion of evidence based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for surgical interventions compared with non-surgical interventions (p=0.007). The proportion of interventions based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for specialist ophthalmologists than trainee ophthalmologists (p=0.021). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the majority of interventions in the ophthalmic unit were evidence based and comparable to the experience of other specialties.
AIM: To evaluate the proportion of interventions that are evidence based in the acute care unit of a regional eye hospital. METHODS: A prospective clinical audit was carried out at Hong Kong Eye Hospital in July 2002 to investigate the extent to which ophthalmic practices were evidence based. The major diagnosis and intervention provided were identified through chart review. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to assess the degree to which each intervention was based on current, best evidence. Each diagnosis intervention pair was accordingly analysed and graded. The level of best, current evidence supporting each intervention was graded and analysed. RESULTS: A total of 274 consecutive consultation episodes were examined. 22 cases were excluded since no diagnosis or intervention was made during the consultation. 108 (42.9%) patient interventions were found to be based on evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomised controlled trials (RCT). Evidence from prospective or retrospective observational studies supported the interventions in 86 (34.1%) patients. In 58 (23.0%) cases, no evidence or opposing evidence was found regarding the intervention. The proportion of evidence based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for surgical interventions compared with non-surgical interventions (p=0.007). The proportion of interventions based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for specialist ophthalmologists than trainee ophthalmologists (p=0.021). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the majority of interventions in the ophthalmic unit were evidence based and comparable to the experience of other specialties.
Authors: S C Brodovsky; C A McCarty; G Snibson; M Loughnan; L Sullivan; M Daniell; H R Taylor Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 12.079