PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications ('grading scales') in optometric practice. METHODS: An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. RESULTS: Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). CONCLUSION: Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications ('grading scales') in optometric practice. METHODS: An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. RESULTS: Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). CONCLUSION: Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.