PURPOSE: A follow up study to investigate whether UK optometrists partially prescribe significant changes in refractive correction to assist patient adaptation and whether various aspects of practitioner profiles are linked to the nature of these prescribing decisions. METHOD: A case scenario type questionnaire was distributed by post and via the internet to UK optometrists. Five case scenarios were described that included information on patient age, symptoms, habitual refractive correction (if any), subjective refraction and any other relevant clinical information. In each case respondents were asked to indicate and justify what refractive correction they would prescribe. RESULTS: A total of 592 questionnaires were completed. Between 41% and 84% prescribed the subjective refraction result depending on the scenario. The likelihood of partial prescribing increased by 34% for every 10 years following qualification and thus after a typical 40 year career, respondents were now over three times more likely to partially prescribe. There were no other links with the propensity to partially prescribe. CONCLUSION: The subjective refraction result exerted a strong hold on the reported prescribing outcome, particularly for newly qualified optometrists. Partial prescribing was increasingly proposed the greater the number of years the respondent had been qualified. This suggests that with increasing exposure to patients who return dissatisfied with their spectacles, a greater appreciation of partial prescribing is gained. This link seems to be an important finding that provides significant support for the prescribing rules suggested by textbooks, which are not yet supported by research evidence.
PURPOSE: A follow up study to investigate whether UK optometrists partially prescribe significant changes in refractive correction to assist patient adaptation and whether various aspects of practitioner profiles are linked to the nature of these prescribing decisions. METHOD: A case scenario type questionnaire was distributed by post and via the internet to UK optometrists. Five case scenarios were described that included information on patient age, symptoms, habitual refractive correction (if any), subjective refraction and any other relevant clinical information. In each case respondents were asked to indicate and justify what refractive correction they would prescribe. RESULTS: A total of 592 questionnaires were completed. Between 41% and 84% prescribed the subjective refraction result depending on the scenario. The likelihood of partial prescribing increased by 34% for every 10 years following qualification and thus after a typical 40 year career, respondents were now over three times more likely to partially prescribe. There were no other links with the propensity to partially prescribe. CONCLUSION: The subjective refraction result exerted a strong hold on the reported prescribing outcome, particularly for newly qualified optometrists. Partial prescribing was increasingly proposed the greater the number of years the respondent had been qualified. This suggests that with increasing exposure to patients who return dissatisfied with their spectacles, a greater appreciation of partial prescribing is gained. This link seems to be an important finding that provides significant support for the prescribing rules suggested by textbooks, which are not yet supported by research evidence.