Jonathan Keenan1, Humma Shahid, Rupert R Bourne, Andrew J White, Keith R Martin. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Vision and Eye Research Unit, Postgraduate Medical Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With a higher life expectancy, there is an increased demand for hospital glaucoma services in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: The Cambridge community Optometry Glaucoma Scheme (COGS) was initiated in 2010, where new referrals for suspected glaucoma are evaluated by community optometrists with a special interest in glaucoma, with virtual electronic review and validation by a consultant ophthalmologist with special interest in glaucoma. PARTICIPANTS: 1733 patients were evaluated by this scheme between 2010 and 2013. METHODS: Clinical assessment is performed by the optometrist at a remote site. Goldmann applanation tonometry, pachymetry, monoscopic colour optic disc photographs and automated Humphrey visual field testing are performed. A clinical decision is made as to whether a patient has glaucoma or is a suspect, and referred on or discharged as a false positive referral. The clinical findings, optic disc photographs and visual field test results are transmitted electronically for virtual review by a consultant ophthalmologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of false positive referrals from initial referral into the scheme. RESULTS: Of the patients, 46.6% were discharged at assessment and a further 5.7% were discharged following virtual review. Of the patients initially discharged, 2.8% were recalled following virtual review. Following assessment at the hospital, a further 10.5% were discharged after a single visit. CONCLUSIONS: The COGS community-based glaucoma screening programme is a safe and effective way of evaluating glaucoma referrals in the community and reducing false-positive referrals for glaucoma into the hospital system.
BACKGROUND: With a higher life expectancy, there is an increased demand for hospital glaucoma services in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: The Cambridge community Optometry Glaucoma Scheme (COGS) was initiated in 2010, where new referrals for suspected glaucoma are evaluated by community optometrists with a special interest in glaucoma, with virtual electronic review and validation by a consultant ophthalmologist with special interest in glaucoma. PARTICIPANTS: 1733 patients were evaluated by this scheme between 2010 and 2013. METHODS: Clinical assessment is performed by the optometrist at a remote site. Goldmann applanation tonometry, pachymetry, monoscopic colour optic disc photographs and automated Humphrey visual field testing are performed. A clinical decision is made as to whether a patient has glaucoma or is a suspect, and referred on or discharged as a false positive referral. The clinical findings, optic disc photographs and visual field test results are transmitted electronically for virtual review by a consultant ophthalmologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of false positive referrals from initial referral into the scheme. RESULTS: Of the patients, 46.6% were discharged at assessment and a further 5.7% were discharged following virtual review. Of the patients initially discharged, 2.8% were recalled following virtual review. Following assessment at the hospital, a further 10.5% were discharged after a single visit. CONCLUSIONS: The COGS community-based glaucoma screening programme is a safe and effective way of evaluating glaucoma referrals in the community and reducing false-positive referrals for glaucoma into the hospital system.
Authors: Kenman Gan; Yao Liu; Brian Stagg; Siddarth Rathi; Louis R Pasquale; Karim Damji Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Dawn A Sim; Danny Mitry; Philip Alexander; Adam Mapani; Srini Goverdhan; Tariq Aslam; Adnan Tufail; Catherine A Egan; Pearse A Keane Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-02-01