Background The WHO's Vision 2020 global initiative against blindness, launched in 2000, prioritises children. Progress has been hampered by the global paucity of epidemiological data about childhood visual disability. The British Childhood Visual Impairment and Blindness Study 2 (BCVIS2) was undertaken to address this evidence gap. Methods UK-wide prospective population-based observational study of all those aged under 18 years newly diagnosed with visual impairment or blindness between Oct 1, 2015 and Nov 1 2016. Eligible children were notified simultaneously but independently by their managing ophthalmologists and paediatricians via the two national active surveillance schemes, the British Ophthalmic and Paediatric Surveillance Units. Standardised detailed data were collected at diagnosis and one year later. Incidence estimates and relative rates by key sociodemographic factors were calculated. Descriptive analyses were undertaken of underlying ophthalmic disorders and nonophthalmic comorbidities. FindingsOf 784 cases, 72% had additional non-ophthalmic impairments/disorders and 4% died within the year. Annual incidence was highest in the first year of life, 5•2 per 10,000 (95% CI 4•7-5•7) with cumulative incidence by 18 years of 10•0 per 10,000 (95% CI 9•4 to 10•8). Rates were higher for those from any ethnic minority group, the lowest quintile of socio-economic status, born preterm or with low birthweight. Only 44% had a single ophthalmic condition: disorders of the brain/visual pathways affected 48% overall. Prenatal or perinatal aetiological factors accounted for 84% of all conditions. InterpretationBCVIS2 provides a contemporary snapshot of the heterogeneity, multi-morbidity and vulnerability associated with childhood visual disability in a high income country, and the arising complex needs. These findings will facilitate developing and delivering healthcare and planning interventional research. They highlight the importance of including childhood visual disability as a sentinel event and metric in global child health initiatives.

Purpose Demands on publicly funded ophthalmic services worldwide continue to increase with new treatments, waiting time targets, working time limits, and restricted budgets. These highlight the necessity to develop innovative ways of utilising existing capacity more effectively. Method A new regional, fully electronic ophthalmic-referral service with digital imaging was trialled using existing information-technology (IT) infrastructure.

No abstract

Our aim was to determine the number of chlamydial infections detected by Cobas Amplicor CT/NG multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of genital and first-voided urine (FVU) specimens compared with routine culture. Two hundred and eighty-six female and 276 male patients attending the Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) Unit at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary were included in the study. Case notes were analysed retrospectively to determine how many infected patients would not have been treated had diagnosis relied on routine culture. Polymerase chain reaction on FVU from women had a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 91%, 100%, 100% and 99.1%: corresponding values for genital PCR and culture were 96%, 100%, 100%, 99.6% and 65%, 100%, 100%, 96.7% respectively. PCR on FVU from men had a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 96%, 99.1%, 92.6% and 99.5%: corresponding values for genital PCR and culture were 89%, 99.5%, 95.8%, 98.6% and 48%, 100%, 100%, 94.3% respectively. In both men and women genital PCR and urine PCR were significantly more sensitive than culture. PCR almost doubled the number of patients detected by culture (49 vs 27). Of the 22 cases detected only by PCR 8 would not have received treatment on the basis of clinic treatment policy.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic halted non-emergency surgery across Scotland. Measures to mitigate the risks of transmitting COVID-19 are creating significant challenges to restarting all surgical services safely. We describe the development of a risk stratification tool to prioritise patients for cataract surgery taking account both specific risk factors for poor outcome from COVID-19 infection as well as surgical ‘need’. In addition we report the demographics and comorbidities of patients on our waiting list. Methods A prospective case review of electronic records was performed. A risk stratification tool was developed based on review of available literature on systemic risk factors for poor outcome from COVID-19 infection as well as a surgical ‘need’ score. Scores derived from the tool were used to generate 6 risk profile groups to allow prioritised allocation of surgery. Results There were 744 patients awaiting cataract surgery of which 66 (8.9 %) patients were ‘shielding’. One hundred and thirty-two (19.5 %) patients had no systemic comorbidities, 218 (32.1 %) patients had 1 relevant systemic comorbidity and 316 (46.5 %) patients had 2 or more comorbidities. Five hundred and ninety patients (88.7 %) did not have significant ocular comorbidities. Using the risk stratification tool, 171 (23 %) patients were allocated in the highest 3 priority stages. Given an aging cohort with associated increase in number of systemic comorbidities, the majority of patients were in the lower priority stages 4 to 6. Conclusions COVID-19 has created an urgent challenge to deal safely with cataract surgery waiting lists. This has driven the need for a prompt and pragmatic change to the way we assess risks and benefits of a previously regarded as low-risk intervention. This is further complicated by the majority of patients awaiting cataract surgery being elderly with comorbidities and at higher risk of mortality related to COVID-19. We present a pragmatic method of risk stratifying patients on waiting lists, blending an evidence-based objective assessment of risk and patient need combined with an element of shared decision-making. This has facilitated safe and successful restarting of our cataract service.