ArticleBMJ open2020
Evaluating the cost and wait-times of a task-sharing model of care for diabetic eye care: a case study from Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reducing outpatient wait times through telemedicine: a systematic review and quantitative analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Optometry in the Delivery of Eye Care via Telehealth: A Systematic Literature Review.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Access and Reducing the Burden on Public Ophthalmology: Collaborative Telehealth Models Between Ophthalmology and Optometry in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Collaborative Telehealth Model for Eye Care Between Ophthalmology and Optometry in Western Australia.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
- Surgical capacity in ophthalmology: the unmet need for sustainable solutions.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Innovative care models: Expanding nurses' and optometrists' roles in ophthalmology.Nursing ethics · 2025Review
- Virtual front door for new referrals from a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme in England.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Barriers to the uptake of eye care services: A cross-sectional survey from rural and urban communities.PloS one · 2024Article
- Characteristics and Admission Preferences of Pediatric Emergency Patients and Their Waiting Time Prediction Using Electronic Medical Record Data: Retrospective Comparative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Implementation and scalability of shared care models for chronic eye disease: a realist assessment informed by health system stakeholders in Finland, the United Kingdom, and Australia.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Benefits of Integrating Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence Into Outreach Eye Care: Stepwise Approach and Future Directions.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Review of referrals reveal the impact of referral content on the triage and management of ophthalmology wait lists.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Experiences of Patients With Diabetes Attending a Publicly Funded Eye Care Pathway in Western Sydney: A Qualitative Study.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Effective Validation of Primary Care Patient Triage Classification Via Tele-Ophthalmology With Optometrist Support.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether a collaborative model of care that uses task-sharing for the management of low-risk diabetic retinopathy, Community Eye Care (C-EYE-C), can improve access to care and better use resources, compared with hospital-based care.
designRetrospective audit of medical and financial records to compare two models of care.
settingA large, urban tertiary Australian publicly funded hospital.
interventionC-EYE-C is a collaborative care model, involving community-based optometrist assessment and 'virtual review' by ophthalmologists to manage low-risk patients. The C-EYE-C model of care was implemented from January to October 2017.
participantsNew low-risk patient referrals with diabetes received at a tertiary hospital ophthalmology unit. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Historical standard hospital care was compared with C-EYE-C for attendance, wait-times, outcomes and costs. Clinical concordance between the optometrist and ophthalmologist diagnosis and management was assessed using weighted kappa statistic.
resultsThere were 133 new low-risk referrals, managed in standard hospital care (n=68) and C-EYE-C (n=65). Attendance rates were similar between the models of care (72.1% hospital vs 67.7% C-EYE-C, p=0.71). C-EYE-C had shorter appointment wait-time (53 vs 118 days, p<0.01). In the C-EYE-C model of care, 68.2% of patients did not require hospital appointments and costs were 43% less than hospital care. There was substantial agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists for diagnosis (κ=0.64, CI 0.47-0.81) and management (κ=0.66, CI 0.45-0.87).
conclusionThis Australian study showed that collaborative eye care resulted in reduced patient waiting times and considerable cost-savings, while maintaining a high standard of patient care compared with traditional hospital-based care in the management of low-risk hospital referrals with diabetic eye disease. The improved access and reduced costs were largely the result of better task allocation through greater utilisation of primary eye care professionals to provide services for low-risk patients. Better resource use may free up further resources for other eye care services.
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.