ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2018
Clinical safety of a minor eye conditions scheme in England delivered by community optometrists.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tele-ophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: HERMES cluster randomised trial with a diagnostic accuracy study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- A review of UK primary care pathways for acute ophthalmic conditions.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- The effectiveness of interventions for optometric referrals into the hospital eye service: A review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Review
- Patterns of attendances to the hospital emergency eye care service: a multicentre study in England.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Optometry independent prescribing during COVID lockdown in Wales.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- A prospective evaluation of the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service across five areas in England.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Reassurance on false negatives in the Manchester COVID19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES).Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- A needs assessment for a minor eye condition service within Leeds, Bradford and Airedale, UK.BMC health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to monitor the activity and evaluate the clinical safety of a minor eye conditions scheme (MECS) conducted by accredited community optometrists in Lambeth and Lewisham, London. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Optometrists underwent an accredited training programme, including attendance at hospital eye services (HES) clinics. Patients who satisfied certain inclusion criteria were referred to accredited MECS optometrists by their general practitioners (GPs) or could self-refer. Data were extracted from clinical records. A sample of MECS clinical records was graded to assess the quality of the MECS optometrists' clinical management decisions. Referrals to the HES were assessed by the collaborating ophthalmologists and feedback was provided.
resultsA total of 2123 patients (mean age 47 years) were seen over 12 months. Two-thirds of the patients (67.3%) were referred by their GP. The most common reasons for patients needing a MECS assessment were 'red eye' (36.7% of patients), 'painful white eye' (11.1%), 'flashes and floaters' (10.2%); 8.7% of patients had a follow-up appointment. Of the patients seen, 75.1% were retained in the community, 5.7% were referred to their GP and 18.9% were referred to the HES. Of the HES referrals, 49.1% were routine, 22.6% urgent and 28.3% emergency. Of the records reviewed, 94.5% were rated as appropriately managed; 89.2% of the HES referrals were considered appropriate.
conclusionThe findings of this study indicate that optometrists are in a good position to work very safely within the remits of the scheme and to assess risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.