Purpose In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES. Methods Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De‐identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. Results A total of 459 de‐identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%–8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%–76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%–49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%–62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%–21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%–97% and were accurate in 81%–98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%–97% and was meaningful in 94%–99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR. Conclusions In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

No abstract

Introduction Digital eye strain (DES; computer vision syndrome) is a common cause of symptoms when viewing digital devices. Low-powered convex lenses (adds) have been recommended for the condition and “accommodative support” designs developed on this premise. The present research reports the extent to which dry eye is present in this population and the effect of convex lenses on symptoms and visual performance. Methods The CVS-Q instrument was used to select pre-presbyopic adults with the symptoms of DES. Participants received a full eye examination including an assessment of dry eye with a modified SANDE questionnaire and using DEWS I criteria. The immediate effect of low-powered convex lenses (low adds: +0.50D, +0.75D, +1.25D) was investigated using subjective preference and a double-masked comparison with plano lenses with the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT). Throughout this testing, participants wore their full distance refractive correction, based on non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and subjective refraction. Results The signs and symptoms of dry eye were frequently present. Most participants reported a subjective preference for low adds, with +0.75D the most commonly preferred lens. Low adds (+0.50D and +0.75D; but not +1.25D) were associated with significantly improved performance at the WRRT. One quarter of participants read more than 10% faster with these additional convex lenses. Conclusions The study population was aged 20–40y and mostly worked on desktop computers. It is possible that +1.25D add may be more advantageous for people who are older or work more at closer viewing distances. Many symptomatic users of digital devices report a preference for low adds and use of these lenses is often associated with an improvement in reading performance.

Objectives This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England. Methods Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from six practices in Scotland and England. If no reply was found, replies/records were copied from HES records. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited against established standards, evaluating whether referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated. Results From 905 de-identified referrals, RR ranged from 2.6 to 8.7%. From COs’ perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 37 to 84% (Scotland) and 26 to 49% (England). A total of 88–96% of referrals (Scotland) and 63–76% (England) were seen in the HES. Adjusting for cases when it is reasonable to expect replies, RRR becomes 45–92% (Scotland) and 38–62% (England) with RRR significantly greater in Scotland (P = 0.015). Replies were copied to patients in 0–21% of cases. Referrals were to the appropriate service and judged necessary in ≥90% of cases in both jurisdictions. Accuracy of referral ranged from 89 to 97% (Scotland) and 81 to 98% (England). The reply addressed the reason for referral in 94–100% of cases (Scotland) and 93–97% (England) and was meaningful in 95–100% (Scotland) and 94–99% (England). Conclusions Despite the interdisciplinary joint statement on sharing patient information, this audit highlights variable standard of referrals and deficits in replies to the referring COs, with one exception in Scotland. Replies from HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians and minimising unnecessary HES appointments.

Purpose Accommodative support (AS) lenses are a low add progressive addition spectacle lens designed to ease symptoms in computer vision syndrome (CVS). The study aims to investigate if (1) AS lenses improve CVS symptoms; (2) binocular/accommodative functions predict a benefit from AS lenses and (3) wearing AS lenses for six months impacts on binocular/accommodative functions. Methods Pre‐presbyopic adults with symptoms of CVS (Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire, CVS‐Q©, score ≥ 6) were randomly allocated to wear AS lenses or control single vision (SV) lenses. The CVS‐Q© and a battery of optometric tests were applied at baseline and after three and six months. Participants and researchers were masked to participant group. After six months, the SV group were unmasked and changed to AS lenses and one week later asked to choose which they preferred. Results The change in CVS‐Q© scores from baseline to six months did not differ significantly in the two groups. At the end of the one week period, when the control group wore the AS lenses, control group participants were significantly more likely to prefer AS lenses to SV lenses. No optometric functions correlated with the benefit from AS lenses. AS lenses did not have any adverse effects on binocular or accommodative function. Conclusions In pre‐presbyopic adults, there was no greater improvement in CVS‐Q© scores in the group wearing AS lenses than in the control group. No adverse effects on optometric function (including accommodation) are associated with wearing AS lenses.