BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify the criteria used by ophthalmologists when assessing patients who may require cataract surgery, examine the extent of variation in their application and explore their relationship with current patterns of supply and demand. METHODS: This was a descriptive study involving semi-structured interviews with ophthalmologists, examination of hospital clinical records, and analysis of routinely available data on waiting times and hospital activity. The setting was ophthalmology units within the Northern Region of England. The subjects were 27 consultant ophthalmologists and 160 patients undergoing cataract extraction. RESULTS: There was agreement amongst ophthalmologists on the criteria used to select patients for treatment, and on the visual acuity level at which they would usually recommend surgery. All assess the degree of handicap resulting from cataract; most consider this more important than visual acuity. Over half of the patients were over 75 years old; two-thirds were women. Median visual acuity at listing was 6/36, but over 40 per cent were 6/60 or worse. Visual acuity at treatment was not recorded for 32 per cent of patients. Wide variation in visual acuity at listing existed between both units and consultants, and for both the affected and other eye. Second extractions may be performed at a better level of visual acuity than for first extractions. Median visual acuity at listing was significantly correlated with total waiting times for individual consultants. Lower cataract extraction rates are associated with long waiting times and poorer visual acuity at listing. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable unmet need for cataract treatment within the Northern Region and significant variation in the current meeting of needs and demands. It may be that more needs could be met simply by changing referral and treatment patterns without increasing total service activity. Although visual acuity is a reasonably objective measure in routine use, the level of visual handicap is more important, and its assessment is more subjective; development of a standard method to assess this could help in producing guidelines for patient referral and selection. Audit of treatment thresholds could allow a better matching of service provision to population needs.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify the criteria used by ophthalmologists when assessing patients who may require cataract surgery, examine the extent of variation in their application and explore their relationship with current patterns of supply and demand. METHODS: This was a descriptive study involving semi-structured interviews with ophthalmologists, examination of hospital clinical records, and analysis of routinely available data on waiting times and hospital activity. The setting was ophthalmology units within the Northern Region of England. The subjects were 27 consultant ophthalmologists and 160 patients undergoing cataract extraction. RESULTS: There was agreement amongst ophthalmologists on the criteria used to select patients for treatment, and on the visual acuity level at which they would usually recommend surgery. All assess the degree of handicap resulting from cataract; most consider this more important than visual acuity. Over half of the patients were over 75 years old; two-thirds were women. Median visual acuity at listing was 6/36, but over 40 per cent were 6/60 or worse. Visual acuity at treatment was not recorded for 32 per cent of patients. Wide variation in visual acuity at listing existed between both units and consultants, and for both the affected and other eye. Second extractions may be performed at a better level of visual acuity than for first extractions. Median visual acuity at listing was significantly correlated with total waiting times for individual consultants. Lower cataract extraction rates are associated with long waiting times and poorer visual acuity at listing. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable unmet need for cataract treatment within the Northern Region and significant variation in the current meeting of needs and demands. It may be that more needs could be met simply by changing referral and treatment patterns without increasing total service activity. Although visual acuity is a reasonably objective measure in routine use, the level of visual handicap is more important, and its assessment is more subjective; development of a standard method to assess this could help in producing guidelines for patient referral and selection. Audit of treatment thresholds could allow a better matching of service provision to population needs.