Purpose The United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) currently provides sight tests at no cost to patients for all those aged <16 or ≥60. Some ‘at-risk’ patients and those in receipt of means-tested benefits are eligible for a NHS sight test between the ages of 16 and 60. In the UK, community optometrists typically either work in independent or national chain practices (multiples). The present study aims to explore whether practice type has any association with sight test outcome. As sight tests are essential in detecting early childhood visual problems, we also aim to explore children's first sight tests. Method Data from 664,480 NHS sight test claims submitted in Essex from April 2015 to September 2016 were analysed using regression analysis. Practice type (multiple, independent) and children's first sight test were examined with respect to socio-economic status (SES, based on index of multiple deprivation rankings), age and sight test outcome. Results The median age for a first NHS sight test was 6 years old and was clinically independent of SES. Children's first sight tests typically resulted in neither a spectacle prescription being issued nor an onwards referral. Patients that attend multiples are significantly more likely to receive a new prescription, relative to no prescription, compared to a patient attending an independent ( p < .001). Conclusions Inequalities in sight test outcome appear to exist with differing type of practice (independent or multiple). Choice of practice type appears to be influenced by SES. Children have their first sight test at a later age than recommended.

Purpose Although urgent primary eye care schemes exist in some areas of England, their current safety is unknown. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to quantify the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID‐19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES) across Luton, Bedford, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire and Harrogate. Methods Consenting patients with acute onset eye problems who had accessed the service were contacted to ascertain what the optometrist's recommendation was, whether this worked, if they had to present elsewhere and how satisfied they were with the CUES. Results A total of 27% (170/629) and 6.3% (28/445) of patients managed virtually and in person, respectively, did not have their acute eye problem resolved. Regression analysis revealed that patients who attended a face‐to‐face consultation were 4.66 times more likely to be correctly managed [Exp (β) = 5.66], relative to those solely managed virtually. Optometrists' phone consultations failed to detect conditions such as stroke, intracranial hypertension, suspected space occupying lesions, orbital cellulitis, scleritis, corneal ulcer, wet macular degeneration, uveitis with macular oedema and retinal detachment. Of referrals to hospital ophthalmology departments, in total, 19% were false‐positives. Patients, however, were typically very satisfied with the service. Uptake was associated with socioeconomic status. Conclusion The present study found that a virtual assessment service providing optometrist tele‐consultations was not effective at resolving patients' acute‐onset eye problems. The range and number of pathologies missed by tele‐consultations suggests that the service model in the present study was detrimental to patient safety. To improve this, optometrists should follow evidence based guidance when attempting to manage patients virtually, or in person. For example, patients presenting with acute‐onset symptoms of flashing lights and/or floaters require an urgent dilated fundus examination. Robust data collection on service safety is required on an ongoing basis.

Although faces can be recognized from different viewpoints, variations in viewpoint impair face identification ability. The present study quantified the effect of changes in viewpoint on sensitivity to face identity. We measured discrimination thresholds for synthetic faces presented from several viewpoints (same viewpoint condition) and the same faces shown with a change in viewpoint (5°, 10° or 20°) between viewing and test. We investigated three types of viewpoint change: (i) front-to-side (front-view matched to 20° side-view), (ii) side-to-front (20° side-view matched to front) and (iii) symmetrical (10° left to 10° right). In the same viewpoint condition, discrimination thresholds were lowest for faces presented from 0° and increased linearly as the viewing angle was increased (threshold elevations: 0° = 1.00×, 5° = 1.11×, 10° = 1.22×, 20° = 1.69×). Changes in viewpoint between viewing and test led to further reductions in discrimination sensitivity, which depended upon the magnitude of viewpoint change (5° = 1.38×, 10° = 1.75×, 20° = 2.07×). Sensitivity also depended upon the type of viewpoint change: while a 20° front-to-side viewpoint change increased discrimination thresholds by a factor of 2.09×, a symmetrical change in viewpoint, of the same magnitude, did not significantly reduce sensitivity (1.26×). Sensitivity to face identity is significantly reduced by changes in viewpoint.Factors which determine the extent of this reduction include the magnitude of viewpoint change and symmetry. Our results support the premise of viewpoint-dependent encoding of unfamiliar face identities, and suggest that symmetry may be used to recognize identities across different viewpoints.

Background There are a number of limitations to the present primary eye care system in the UK. Patients with minor eye conditions typically either have to present to their local hospital or GP, or face a charge when visiting eye care professionals (optometrists). Some areas of the UK have commissioned enhanced community services to alleviate this problem; however, many areas have not. The present study is a needs assessment of three areas (Leeds, Airedale and Bradford) without a Minor Eye Conditions Service (MECS), with the aim of determining whether such a service is clinically or economically viable. Method A pro forma was developed for optometrists and practice staff to complete when a patient presented whose reason for attending was due to symptoms indicative of a problem that could not be optically corrected. This form captured the reason for visit, whether the patient was seen, the consultation funding, the outcome and where the patient would have presented to if the optometrists could not have seen them. Optometrists were invited to participate via Local Optical Committees. Results were submitted via a Google form or a Microsoft Excel document and were analysed in Microsoft Excel. Results Seventy-five percent of patients were managed in optometric practice. Nine and 16% of patients required subsequent referral to their General Practitioner or hospital ophthalmology department, respectively. Should they not have been seen, 34% of patients would have presented to accident and emergency departments and 59% to their general practitioner. 53% of patients paid privately for the optometrist appointment, 28% of patients received a free examination either through use of General Ophthalmic Service sight tests (9%) or optometrist good will (19%) and 19% of patients did not receive a consultation and were redirected to other providers (e.g. pharmacy, accident and emergency or General Practitioner). 88% of patients were satisfied with the level of service. Cost-analyses revealed a theoretical cost saving of £3198 to the NHS across our sample for the study period, indicating cost effectiveness. Conclusions This assessment demonstrates that a minor eye condition service in the local areas would be economically and clinically viable and well received by patients.

Italian optometrists refract patients and prescribe optical appliances. The routine optometric examination that is currently conducted in Italy, however, does not include a comprehensive ocular health assessment. Like many other countries, in Italy ophthalmologists are solely responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of ocular pathologies, yet, the care an optometrist provides must be done with the aim of promoting the general and ocular health of patients seen in practice. Such scope has to be pursued using a close collaboration with ophthalmologists, ultimately facilitating the earliest medical diagnosis and minimisation of visual impairment. Referral represents the basis of optometrist-ophthalmologist collaboration, yet, no guidance is available to Italian optometrists indicating when referral is warranted. The purpose of this study was to identify the circumstances deserving a referral in a routine Italian optometric examination in adults, ultimately constituting preliminary evidence-based indications of a referral model oriented to enhance the ocular and general health of patients. A literature review was conducted on Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, mainly targeting high quality secondary literature such as systematic reviews, meta-analysis and clinical guidelines. Several reasons for referral were identified. Further, while a wide range of anomalies of the visual system are likely to be discovered by the Italian optometric examination, up to 20% of patients could suffer an underlying condition undetected by the current assessment. This results in the need to refer seemingly healthy patients if they have not attended routine ophthalmological examinations within optimal time frames. In Italy, and countries with similar settings, the referral is an essential instrument that optometrists must largely use to ensure early diagnosis of ocular conditions by ophthalmologists and minimisation of avoidable visual impairment.