Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34493511›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Review of referrals reveal the impact of referral content on the triage and management of ophthalmology wait lists.

Vincent Khou, Angelica Ly, Lindsay Moore, Maria Markoulli, Michael Kalloniatis, Michael Yapp, Michael Hennessy, Barbara Zangerl

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

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vincent KhouCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4696-9226
Angelica LyCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7881-1522
Lindsay MooreCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maria MarkoulliSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael KalloniatisCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael YappCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael HennessyCentre for Eye Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2750-9344
Barbara ZangerlSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia zangerlb@gmail.com.
UNSW Sydney · AUPrince of Wales Hospital · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMany chronic eye conditions are managed within public hospital ophthalmology clinics resulting in encumbered wait lists. Integrated care schemes can increase system capacity. In order to direct implementation of a public hospital-based integrated eye care model, this study aims to evaluate the quality of referrals for new patients through information content, assess triage decisions of newly referred patients and evaluate the consistency of referral content for new patients referred multiple times.

designA retrospective and prospective review of all referral forms for new patients referred to a public hospital ophthalmology clinic between January 2016 and September 2017, and September 2017 and August 2018, respectively.

settingA referral-only public hospital ophthalmology clinic in metropolitan Sydney, Australia.

participants418 new patients on existing non-urgent wait lists waiting to be allocated an initial appointment, and 528 patients who were newly referred. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the information content of referrals for new patients. The secondary outcomes were triage outcomes for new incoming referrals, and the number of new patients with multiple referrals.

resultsOf the wait-listed referrals, 0.2% were complete in referral content compared with 9.8% of new incoming referrals (p<0.001). Of new incoming referrals, 56.7% were triaged to a non-urgent clinic. Multiple referrals were received for 49 patients, with no change in the amount of referral content.

conclusionsMost referrals were incomplete in content, leading to triage based on limited clinical information. Some new patients were referred multiple times with their second referral containing a similar amount of content as their first. Lengthy wait lists could be prevented by improving administrative processes and communication between the referral centre and referrers. The future implementation of an integrated eye care model at the study setting could sustainably cut wait lists for patients with chronic eye conditions.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyTriageHumansProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesWaiting Listscataract and refractive surgeryclinical auditophthalmologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34493511
PMCPMC8424861
OpenAlexW3197892517

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.