ObjectivesTo investigate the views and experiences of patients regarding their glaucoma follow-up, particularly towards the type and frequency of visual field (VF) testing.DesignA qualitative investigation using focus groups. The group discussion used broad open questions around the topics in a prompt guide relating to experiences of glaucoma follow-up, and in particular, VF monitoring. All the groups were taped, transcribed and coded using manual and computer-aided methods.SettingThree National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England; two focus groups took place at each hospital.Participants28 patients (mean (SD) age: 74 (9) years; 54% women) diagnosed with glaucoma for at least 2 years. Each focus group consisted of 3–6 patients.Primary and secondary outcomes(1) Attitudes and experiences of patients with glaucoma regarding VF testing. (2) Patients’ opinions about successful follow-up in glaucoma.ResultsThese patients did not enjoy the VF test but they recognised the importance of regular monitoring for preserving their vision. These patients would agree to more frequent VF testing on their clinician's recommendation. A number of themes recurred throughout the focus groups representing perceived barriers to follow-up care. The testing environment, waiting times, efficiency of appointment booking and travel to the clinic were all perceived to influence the general clinical experience and the quality of assessment data. Patients were also concerned about aspects of patient–doctor communication, and often received little to no feedback about their results.ConclusionsPatients trust the clinician to make the best decisions for their glaucoma follow-up. However, patients highlighted a number of issues that could compromise the effectiveness of VF testing. Addressing patient-perceived barriers could be an important step for devising optimal strategies for follow-up care.

Purpose: UK demographic and legislative changes combined with increasing burdens on National Health Service manpower and budgets have led to extended roles for community optometrists providing locally-commissioned enhanced optometric services (EOS). This realist review's objectives were to develop programme theories that implicitly or explicitly explain quality outcomes for eye care provided by optometrists via EOS and to test these theories by investigating the effectiveness of services for cataract, glaucoma, and primary eye care. Methods: The review protocol was published on PROSPERO, and RAMESES publication standards were followed. Programme theories were formulated via scoping literature searches and expert consultation. The searching process involved all relevant electronic databases and grey literature, without restrictions on study design. Data synthesis focussed on questioning the integrity of each theory by considering supportive and refuting evidence from the source literature. Results: Good evidence exists for cataract, glaucoma and primary eye care EOS that: with appropriate training, accredited optometrists manage patients commensurate with usual care standards; genuine partnerships can exist between community and hospital providers for cataract and glaucoma EOS; patient satisfaction with all three types of service is high; cost-effectiveness of services is unproven for cataract and primary eye care, while glaucoma EOS cost-effectiveness depends on service type; contextual factors may influence service success. Conclusions: The EOS reviewed are clinically effective and provide patient satisfaction but limited data is available on cost-effectiveness.

BackgroundVisual field (VF) tests are the benchmark for detecting and monitoring the eye disease glaucoma. Measurements from VF tests are variable, which means that frequent monitoring, perhaps over a long period of time, is required to accurately detect true glaucomatous progression. In 2009, guidelines for the diagnosis and management of glaucoma issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence revealed an absence of research evidence about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using different monitoring intervals to detect disease progression. However, the European Glaucoma Society (EGS) guidelines on patient examination recommend that newly diagnosed glaucoma patients should undergo VF testing three times per year in the first 2 years after initial diagnosis.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this project was to explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using different monitoring intervals to detect VF progression in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Other objectives sought to (1) explore glaucoma patients’ views and experiences of monitoring using focus groups; and (2) establish glaucoma subspecialists’ attitudes regarding frequency of VF testing using a five-item questionnaire.DesignThese questions were investigated using a multicentre audit of current practice and existing NHS data (VF records from almost 90,000 patients). New research knowledge was provided through statistical and health economic modelling of these and additional published data.ResultsThe multicentre audit showed that VF monitoring is, on average, carried out annually. Patient focus groups indicated that, although patients do not like VF testing, they accept it as a critical part of their care. Patients raised concerns regarding distracting testing environments, quality of instructions, explanation of results and excessive waiting times. Questionnaires revealed that clinicians’ attitudes towards the frequency of VF testing varied considerably, and many glaucoma specialists believed that current recommendations are impractical. Statistical modelling suggested that EGS recommendations could be clinically effective as progression can be identified sooner than is possible with annual testing. Health economic modelling suggested that increased VF monitoring may also be cost-effective [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was equal to £21,679].ConclusionsStatistical modelling of VF data suggests there is strong rationale for following EGS recommendations with the primary benefit of providing better information about fast-progressing patients. Our health economic model suggested that increasing VF testingmaybe cost-effective (ICER was equal to £21,679), especially when accounting for gains to society. Nevertheless, many clinicians consider increased VF testing of patients impossible with current resources. In addition, patient focus groups raised concerns about the practicalities of delivery of VF tests.Future workResults from this study could inform the design of a prospective randomised comparative trial of different VF monitoring intervals in glaucoma linked to stratifying patients according to risk factors for progression. The statistical model for VF data can be further developed to be used as a practical tool for optimising individualised follow-up. The views of clinicians and patients indicate that service delivery of VF testing is an important issue and worthy of further investigation. Ensuring the confidence and co-operation of the patient should be at the centre of future research into the most efficient strategies for glaucoma monitoring.FundingThis work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The results of the study have implications for the way nurses develop and maintain interpersonal relationships with consumers, and this is affected by nurses' personal and professional attributes.

This paper explores a single dimension of the nurse practitioner role - whether community mental health nurse practitioners should have authority to prescribe medications. The paper is taken from a larger study about how these nurses promote wellness with clients experiencing an early episode of psychotic illness. The focus is timely as several Australian States have recently passed nurse practitioner legislation. This qualitative study used interviews and participant observation to collect data. The fieldwork was undertaken in the community, in regional and rural New South Wales, Australia and involved community mental health nurses. The findings show that expanding the nurse practitioner role to include authority to prescribe medications is currently contentious. Respondents envisaged that prescribing authority would include most medications that are used to treat mental illness but exclude drugs that treat medical illness. They identified a need for an appropriate educational course, and called for a system of clinical supervision and ongoing support for nurses assuming this role. Participants also claimed that individual nurses who choose to forgo prescribing authority should not be coerced into undertaking this role. The findings have professional, clinical, legal and educational implications for nurses as they seek authority to prescribe within the context of a nurse practitioner role and these are discussed.