ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Evaluation of the Community Urgent Eyecare Service in Greater Manchester, Including the Impact of Independent Prescribing.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCommunity Urgent Eyecare Services (CUES) utilises primary care optometrists to reduce urgent eyecare demand within ophthalmology and general practice (GP). This large-scale study evaluated CUES in Greater Manchester (GM), including assessing the embedded Independent Prescribing (IP) pathway.
methodsThis retrospective, GM-wide analysis evaluated CUES data from 1st January to 31st December 2024. Primary care data included patient pathways, case mix and IP outcomes. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) deciles were assigned to explore socioeconomic associations with CUES access. Secondary care data included sampling CUES referrals to Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (MREH), assessing diagnostic agreement with Eye Emergency Department (EED) clinicians and determining the proportion of cases potentially manageable by IP optometrists in primary care.
resultsIn 2024, GM CUES managed 54,994 patients; 69.9% were self-presenting, and 78.2% were assessed, managed and discharged without referral. Furthermore, 5.2% of cases were referred to General Medical Practitioners (GPs), resulting in 83.4% overall being retained in primary care. Patients in the most deprived IMD decile attended more frequently. IP-episode discharge rate was significantly higher (87.5%, p = 0.000001) than non-IP episodes (78.1%). In the referred sub-sample, diagnostic agreement with EED clinicians was 75.0%, with 40.0% of these cases being potentially manageable within primary care had IP capacity been available. Primary care National Health Service prescriptions (FP10 prescriptions) were issued for 73.0% (N = 362) of IP cases with corticosteroids (43.7%, N = 190), antibiotics (14.3%, N = 62) and antimuscarinics (12.4%, N = 54) being the most common.
conclusionGM CUES managed and discharged most cases in primary care, reducing GP and EED demands. Greater IP optometrist availability could broaden CUES' scope and increase effectiveness.
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.