Jane Scheetz1, Konstandina Koklanis2, Maureen Long2, Meg E Morris2. 1. From the School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia. J.Scheetz@latrobe.edu.au. 2. From the School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: To investigate the level of agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners in the comprehensive eye examination of children seen in an orthoptist-led triage clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient records over a 6-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Those with a presenting complaint related to vision or ocular motility were triaged into the orthoptist-led clinic and included in the study. Patients who did not meet the triage protocol and those who were not assessed by a medical practitioner at a subsequent appointment were excluded from analysis. The clinical findings from the orthoptist and medical practitioner were collected and compared. RESULTS: In total, sixty-three patients were reviewed during the 6-month period and met the inclusion criteria. After the initial comprehensive eye examination with an orthoptist, thirty-two were discharged from hospital and thirty-one were asked to return for a review appointment with a medical practitioner. Agreement between the orthoptists and medical practitioners for the diagnosis of strabismus and/or amblyopia was 84.6% (κ = 0.649, P < 0.001). There was strong agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners for refractive error of the right eye [τ (19) = 0.352, P = 0.729] and left eye [τ (19) = 1.785, P = 0.090]. Fundus examination comparisons between the orthoptists and medical practitioners showed very high agreement (95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Orthoptists have the skills necessary to provide comprehensive care of children referred for ocular motility and/or vision related disorders. There was close agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners when performing comprehensive eye examinations.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: To investigate the level of agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners in the comprehensive eye examination of children seen in an orthoptist-led triage clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient records over a 6-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Those with a presenting complaint related to vision or ocular motility were triaged into the orthoptist-led clinic and included in the study. Patients who did not meet the triage protocol and those who were not assessed by a medical practitioner at a subsequent appointment were excluded from analysis. The clinical findings from the orthoptist and medical practitioner were collected and compared. RESULTS: In total, sixty-three patients were reviewed during the 6-month period and met the inclusion criteria. After the initial comprehensive eye examination with an orthoptist, thirty-two were discharged from hospital and thirty-one were asked to return for a review appointment with a medical practitioner. Agreement between the orthoptists and medical practitioners for the diagnosis of strabismus and/or amblyopia was 84.6% (κ = 0.649, P < 0.001). There was strong agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners for refractive error of the right eye [τ (19) = 0.352, P = 0.729] and left eye [τ (19) = 1.785, P = 0.090]. Fundus examination comparisons between the orthoptists and medical practitioners showed very high agreement (95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Orthoptists have the skills necessary to provide comprehensive care of children referred for ocular motility and/or vision related disorders. There was close agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners when performing comprehensive eye examinations.