Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30837251›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? The iCareTrack feasibility study.

Kam Chun Ho, Dian Rahardjo, Fiona Stapleton, Louise Wiles, Peter D Hibbert, Andrew J R White, Andrew Hayen, Isabelle Jalbert

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kam Chun HoSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9029-4329
Dian RahardjoSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Fiona StapletonSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise WilesAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter D HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew J R WhiteCambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Andrew HayenSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Isabelle JalbertSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1351-0072
UNSW Sydney · AUUniversity of South Australia · AUCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery.

designCross-sectional feasibility study. SETTING AND

participantsTwo hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling.

methodsRetrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received.

resultsA median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69% (95% CI 67% to 70%) for preventative eye care, 60% (95% CI 56% to 58%) for glaucoma and 63% (95% CI 57% to 69%) for diabetic eye care.

conclusionsAppropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEye DiseasesFeasibility StudiesHumansOphthalmologyQuality of Health CareRetrospective Studiesappropriateness of carediabetic retinopathyglaucomapreventative eyecarerecord auditrecord review

Identifiers

PMID30837251
PMCPMC6429871
OpenAlexW2919182044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.