Premium
Therapeutic endorsement enhances compliance with national glaucoma guidelines in Australian and New Zealand optometrists
Author(s) -
Zangerl Barbara,
Hayen Andrew,
Mitchell Paul,
Jamous Khalid F.,
Stapleton Fiona,
Kalloniatis Michael
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
ophthalmic and physiological optics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.147
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1475-1313
pISSN - 0275-5408
DOI - 10.1111/opo.12197
Subject(s) - glaucoma , medicine , optometry , intraocular pressure , concordance , medline , gonioscopy , ophthalmology , family medicine , political science , law
Purpose Previous studies confirmed that optometrists have access to and confidence in applying clinical tests recommended for glaucoma assessment. Less is known about factors best predicting compliance with national clinical guidelines and thus by inference, the provision of suitable care by primary care ophthalmic practitioners. We utilised the unique two‐tiered profession (therapeutic and non‐therapeutic scope of practice) in Australia and New Zealand to assess the prospective adherence to glaucoma guidelines dependent on the clinician's background. Methods Australian and New Zealand optometrists were surveyed on ophthalmic techniques for glaucoma assessment, criteria for the evaluation of the optic nerve head, glaucoma risk categories and review times while also recording background, training, and experience. Parameters identifying progression/conversion and patients' risk levels were analysed comparatively to ophthalmologists' opinions. Linear regression analysis identified variables significantly improving the likelihood of concordance with guidelines. Results Reported application of techniques complied well with glaucoma guidelines although gonioscopy and pachymetry, pupil dilation for optic nerve head examination, and acquisition of permanent records were less frequently employed. The main predictors for entry‐level diagnostic standards were therapeutic endorsement together with the associated knowledge of relevant guidance and procedural confidence. Other findings suggested a potential underestimation in the value of optic disc size and intraocular pressure for the prediction of glaucoma risk, while optometrists more frequently relied on the outcomes of non‐standardised automated perimetry and auxiliary imaging. Conclusions Optometrists in Australia and New Zealand may not always exercise optimal clinical acumen regarding techniques/criteria for glaucoma diagnosis. Therapeutic endorsement was gradually adopted in different jurisdictions in various forms since 1999 and is mandatory for registration since late 2014. The result of the two‐tiered optometric cohorts suggest that inclusion of therapeutic training as part of the core training is likely a key factor to enhanced compliance with glaucoma guidelines. Improved adherence to the current clinical standards should positively impact on the facilitation of appropriate glaucoma diagnosis and management. Obligatory knowledge and possibly accreditation of available guidelines might ensure a uniform standard in glaucoma testing protocols in concordance with compulsory entry‐level skills.