Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40486445›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

A Closed-Loop Audit: The Assessment of Red Flags and Management of Acute Conjunctivitis in Primary Care.

Monica Kelada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Monica KeladaPrimary Care, Dapdune House Surgery, Guildford, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Acute red eye is a common presenting complaint to primary care. Although conjunctivitis is the most common cause, some conditions can be sight-threatening. Diagnosing such conditions can be difficult given the broad differential diagnoses and limited specialist equipment. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published five "red flags," which may indicate the need for urgent ophthalmological assessment: reduced visual acuity (VA), copious discharge, marked eye pain/photophobia, contact lens use and recent trauma. For patients not requiring specialist referral, NICE recommends conservative management and reserving antibiotics for non-resolving/severe cases. Aims The primary objective of this audit was to improve the assessment and documentation of acute red eye in primary care. The secondary outcome was to evaluate management appropriateness. Methodology We conducted a closed-loop audit to evaluate the clinical assessment and management of acute red eye within a single primary care practice. All cases coded as "conjunctivitis" or "acute red eye" over a one-year period were included. The following aspects of the clinical assessment were explored: symptom duration, laterality and red flag assessment. The conjunctivitis type diagnosed (bacterial, viral, allergic or unspecified) and management strategies were recorded. The audit introduced a multi-faceted intervention to improve the assessment and management of red flag symptoms in patients presenting with acute red eye. A practice meeting was conducted to raise awareness about the importance of assessing for red flag symptoms and adhering to guidelines. Additionally, a standardised template for GPs to use during consultations and a text message patient questionnaire for telephone consultations were implemented. The impact of these implementations was reassessed after one year. Results Over a one-year period, 42 cases were identified. On average, patients presented after 2.4 days of symptoms. Overall, 97.6% (41/42) documented symptom laterality. On average, each patient had 1.8 red flags assessed. One patient had red flag symptoms and was correctly referred to same-day ophthalmology services. Out of 42 patients, 41 were diagnosed with unspecified conjunctivitis, while one was diagnosed with viral conjunctivitis. Although there were zero recorded cases of bacterial aetiology, 73.8% (31/42) were prescribed antibiotics and 16.7% (7/42) were given hygiene advice and a deferred antibiotic drops script, while only 7.1% (3/42) were managed conservatively. Post-interventions, 13 cases were identified. On average, each patient had 3.8 red flags assessed (p<0.001). Only one patient was identified as having red flag symptoms and reduced VA and was referred to ophthalmology services. Out of the 13 patients, 12 were diagnosed with unspecified conjunctivitis, while one was diagnosed with bacterial aetiology; 15.3% (2/13) were managed conservatively, while the remaining 84.6% (11/13) were prescribed antibiotics. Two out of the 11 patients given antibiotics were prescribed fusidic acid, having been refractory to chloramphenicol. Conclusion This audit demonstrated that significant improvements in clinical assessment of conjunctivitis can be achieved through practical and inexpensive interventions. However, antibiotic prescribing remained high despite limited bacterial diagnoses. Further efforts are needed to sustain improvements and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Indexed as

acute red eyeassessment for sight-threatening conditionsconjunctivitisophthalmologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID40486445
PMCPMC12145132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.