Glaucoma referral refinement in Ireland: managing the sensitivity-specificity paradox in optometric practice.

PURPOSE: Glaucoma referral refinement (GRR) has proven a successful demand management strategy for glaucoma suspect cases in the United Kingdom (UK). A GRR clinic was established in Dublin, Ireland to investigate the clinical viability of this pathway outside the UK's National Health Service (NHS) structures, and away from the influence of National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance.
METHODS: Glaucoma suspect patients were recruited into the scheme following referral from community optometrists in the greater Dublin area. The GRR exam protocol was designed in consultation with the participating ophthalmology department. The refinement scheme optometrist, trained through apprenticeship style experience at a hospital outpatient clinic, made a tentative management decision after carrying out the GRR exam. The final management decision was made in a 'virtual clinic' by a glaucoma specialist consultant ophthalmologist.
RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-five glaucoma suspect patients were seen in the scheme. After their first GRR visit, 28% were discharged back to their own optometrist, 42% were monitored in the GRR clinic, and 30% were referred to ophthalmology. After this monitoring cohort were further assessed, a total of 38% of the patients seen within the scheme required referral to ophthalmology. Sixteen percent of the total participant group (n = 225) were lost to follow up. Cohen's κ was used to determine the level of agreement between the scheme optometrist and ophthalmologist. There was substantial agreement, with κ = 0.63 for the first visit management decisions (n = 225). Agreement increased for subsequent monitoring visits with κ = 0.85 for second visits (n = 65), and κ = 0.69 for all management decisions within the scheme (n = 301). We received management outcomes for 44 of the 86 patients referred to ophthalmology. Of these 44, 57% received medical treatment for glaucoma, 34% were monitored without treatment, 2% were discharged, and 7% had comorbidities that were assessed and managed.
CONCLUSION: Of the patients seen within the scheme, 62% did not require referral onward to ophthalmology, thus releasing the significant majority of hospital clinic slots that would previously have been required to examine such patients. The high level of inter-professional decision agreement likely reflects the benefits of pre-scheme apprenticeship style training and ongoing hospital clinic participation by the scheme optometrist. The rate of loss to follow up compares favourably with ophthalmology led, hospital based, glaucoma clinics. Nevertheless, the losses indicate that patient education remains a key priority for future planning.