ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising the patient pathway for macular conditions requiring intravitreal injections.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of optic nerve OCT and ultrasound in a large paediatric cohort referred with suspected papilloedema and very low rates of raised ICP.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- The quality, accuracy and appropriateness of UK optometric age-related macular degeneration referrals.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- A review of UK primary care pathways for acute ophthalmic conditions.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Review
- Assessment of optometrists' referral accuracy and contributing factors: A review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Review
- Optometrists' Perspectives Regarding Artificial Intelligence Aids and Contributing Retinal Images to a Repository: Web-Based Interview Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England.
methodsOptometric 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.
resultsFrom 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).
conclusionsDespite 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.
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.