The effectiveness of interventions for optometric referrals into the hospital eye service: A review

Abstract

Purpose: Ophthalmic services are currently under considerable stress; in the UK, ophthalmology departments have the highest number of outpatient appointments of any department within the National Health Service. Recognising the need for intervention, several approaches have been trialled to tackle the high numbers of false-positive referrals initiated in primary care and seen face to face within the hospital eye service (HES). In this mixed-methods narrative synthesis, we explored interventions based on their clinical impact, cost and acceptability to determine whether they are clinically effective, safe and sustainable. A systematic literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), was used to identify appropriate studies published between December 2001 and December 2022.

Recent findings: A total of 55 studies were reviewed. Four main interventions were assessed, where two studies covered more than one type: training and guidelines (n = 8), referral filtering schemes (n = 32), asynchronous teleophthalmology (n = 13) and synchronous teleophthalmology (n = 5). All four approaches demonstrated effectiveness for reducing false-positive referrals to the HES. There was sufficient evidence for stakeholder acceptance and cost-effectiveness of referral filtering schemes; however, cost comparisons involved assumptions. Referral filtering and asynchronous teleophthalmology reported moderate levels of false-negative cases (2%-20%), defined as discharged patients requiring HES monitoring.

Summary: The effectiveness of interventions varied depending on which outcome and stakeholder was considered. More studies are required to explore stakeholder opinions around all interventions. In order to maximise clinical safety, it may be appropriate to combine more than one approach, such as referral filtering schemes with virtual review of discharged patients to assess the rate of false-negative cases. The implementation of a successful intervention is more complex than a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and there is potential space for newer types of interventions, such as artificial intelligence clinical support systems within the referral pathway.

Keywords: enhanced referrals; false-positive; independent prescribing; optometrists; optometry; primary eye care; referrals; teleophthalmology.

FIGURE 1

PRISMA flow chart detailing the selection process for the studies reviewed.

FIGURE 2

An overview of the methodology used in each of the 55 studies reviewed.

FIGURE 3

A summary of evidence in support of three outcome measures in relation to four types of intervention. Where the evidence supports the clinical outcome, a ‘✓’ is displayed. Where the outcomes are not fully supported or evidence is lacking, a ‘?’ is displayed. For outcomes which are not fully supported, the reason why this was decided is stated.