OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a novel diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening model using a pathology collection centre (PCC) as a screening site. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional pilot study conducted in one urban PCC in Victoria between 1 September 2009 and 15 March 2010. Trained pathology staff screened participants for DR using undilated, non-stereoscopic colour fundus photography. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients who spoke English, were aged at least 12 years, had type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and did not undertake biannual DR screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who do not participate in biannual DR screening; proportion of patients who accept DR screening while attending a PCC; proportion of gradable images; patient acceptance of the screening model; and effectiveness of the follow-up pathway. RESULTS: Over 6 months, 289 English-speaking patients with diabetes attended the PCC, of whom 99 (34.3%) had not undertaken biannual DR screening. Of these, 93 (93.9%) accepted our screening service. Overall, retinal images were sufficient for interpretation in 88 patients (94.6%) and the median time for photography was 6 minutes (interquartile range, 10 minutes). Two, eight and six cases of minimal, mild and moderate non-proliferative DR (NPDR) in the worst eye were found, respectively. Dissemination of screening results to treating doctors and patients was found to be suboptimal and will need to be revised. CONCLUSION: DR screening in one urban PCC appears to be a feasible alternative for diabetic patients who do not undertake biannual screening for DR.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a novel diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening model using a pathology collection centre (PCC) as a screening site. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional pilot study conducted in one urban PCC in Victoria between 1 September 2009 and 15 March 2010. Trained pathology staff screened participants for DR using undilated, non-stereoscopic colour fundus photography. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients who spoke English, were aged at least 12 years, had type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and did not undertake biannual DR screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who do not participate in biannual DR screening; proportion of patients who accept DR screening while attending a PCC; proportion of gradable images; patient acceptance of the screening model; and effectiveness of the follow-up pathway. RESULTS: Over 6 months, 289 English-speaking patients with diabetes attended the PCC, of whom 99 (34.3%) had not undertaken biannual DR screening. Of these, 93 (93.9%) accepted our screening service. Overall, retinal images were sufficient for interpretation in 88 patients (94.6%) and the median time for photography was 6 minutes (interquartile range, 10 minutes). Two, eight and six cases of minimal, mild and moderate non-proliferative DR (NPDR) in the worst eye were found, respectively. Dissemination of screening results to treating doctors and patients was found to be suboptimal and will need to be revised. CONCLUSION: DR screening in one urban PCC appears to be a feasible alternative for diabeticpatients who do not undertake biannual screening for DR.
Authors: Stuart Keel; Pei Ying Lee; Jane Scheetz; Zhixi Li; Mark A Kotowicz; Richard J MacIsaac; Mingguang He Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 4.379