Diagnosing glaucoma in optometry practice
DOI: 10.32364/2311-7729-2022-22-4-258-264
A.V. Korneeva1, I.N. Isakov2, A.V. Kuroedov3,4, O.N. Onufriychuk5
1LLC "Ophthalmology Elite", Moscow, Russian Federation
2G.B. Kurbatov Novokuznetsk City Clinical Hospital No. 1, Novokuznetsk, Russian Federation
3Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
4P.V. Mandryka Military Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russian Federation
5G.I. Turner National Medical Research Center of Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
The article discusses the role of optometry practice in diagnosing early glaucoma in the context of the obviously increasing incidence of glaucoma and the ophthalmic staffing shortage. It elucidates the findings of domestic and international studies focused on the early glaucoma diagnosis in optometry. The evolving role of optometry personnel in the public health system is underpinned by the increasing number of patients with eye diseases and the growing demand for primary ophthalmic care due to a higher life expectancy of the population. So far, the optometry practice is not always considered as a part of the public health system, but it plays an important role in protecting the vision, as it often helps to identify patients with early stages of refractive disorders and other ophthalmic diseases. The opportunities of diagnosing of glaucoma in optometric practice usually depend on the set goals, available equipment, optometrist skills and commitments to achieving the results. Improving equipment availability in the optometrist’s office, professional development of specialists and their motivations for performing diagnostic tes ts may optimize the detection of glaucoma. It is also worth noting the importance of interaction between the optometrist and the ophthalmologist. Over the past years, a positive trend to optometry development has emerged shaping the future expansion of the scope of traditional professional interests of optometry staff. The trend is based on the improved situation with the equipment availability and the professional development of specialists.
Keywords: glaucoma, optometrist, optometry practice, ophthalmologist, glaucoma diagnostics, glaucoma optic neuropathy.
For citation: Korneeva A.V., Isakov I.N., Kuroedov A.V., Onufriychuk O.N. Diagnosing glaucoma in optometry practice. Russian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2022;22(4):258–264 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2311-7729-2022-22-4-258-264.
About the authors:
Alina V. Korneeva — C. Sc. (Med.), ophthalmologist of LLC "Ophthalmology Elite"; 6, Poklonnaya str., Moscow, 121170, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0002-4435-8114.
Ivan N. Isakov — ophthalmologist, Head of the Ophthalmological Department, G.B. Kurbatov Novokuznetsk City Clinical Hospital No. 1; 26A, Bardin av., Novokuznetsk, 654041, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0001-5930-8040.
Aleksandr V. Kuroedov — Dr. S. (Med.), Professor of the Department of Ophthalmology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; 1, Ostrovityanov str., Moscow, 117437, Russian Federation; Head of the Ophthalmological Department, P.V. Mandryka Military Clinical Hospital; 8A, Bolshaya Olenya str., Moscow, 107014, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0001-9606-0566.
Oleg N. Onufriychuk — C. Sc. (Med.), ophthalmologist, G.I. Turner National Medical Research Center of Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; 12A, Lakhtinskaya str., St. Petersburg, 197136, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0001-6841-3547.
Contact information: Alina V. Korneeva, e-mail: a-bel@mail.ru.
Financial Disclosure: no authors have a financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned.
There is no conflict of interests.
Received 29.10.2021.
Revised 25.11.2021.
Accepted 20.12.2021.
2. Rinskaya N.V. Optometrist’s handbook. Refraction selection algorithm: a textbook for ophthalmologists and optometrists. M.: FARB-IT; 2018 (in Russ.).
3. Neroev V.V., Kiseleva O.A., Bessmertny A.M. The main results of a multicenter study of the epidemiological features of primary open-angle glaucoma in the Russian Federation. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2013;6(3):43–46 (in Russ.).
4. Egorov E.A., Kuroedov A.V. Selected clinical and epidemiological characteristics of glaucoma in the CIS countries and Georgia. Results of a multicenter open-label retrospective study (part 1). RMJ. Clinical ophthalmology. 2011;12(3):97–100 (in Russ.).
5. Nesterov A.P., Alyabyeva Zh.Yu. Normal tension glaucoma: a modern view on pathogenesis, diagnostics, clinic and treatment. Part I. Glaucoma. 2005;3(1):66–75 (in Russ.).
6. Clinical guidelines. Glaucoma primary open-angle. 2020 (in Russ.).
7. Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of June 9, 2020 No. 558n "On Amendments to the Procedure for the Provision of Medical Care to the Adult Population with Diseases of the Eye, Its Adnexa and Orbit, Approved by Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 902n of November 12, 2012 (in Russ.).
8. Dobbelsteyn D., McKee K., Bearnes R.D. et al. What percentage of patients presenting for routine eye examinations require referral for secondary care? A study of referrals from optometrists to ophthalmologists. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98(3):214–217. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12255.
9. Davey C.J., Green C., Elliott D.B. Assessment of referrals to the hospital eye service by optometrists and GPs in Bradford and Airedale. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(1):23–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00797.x.
10. Lundmark P.O., Luraas K. Survey of referrals and medical reports in optometric practices in Norway: midterm findings from a 3-year prospective Internet-based study. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2017;9:97–103. DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S136510.
11. Landgren K., Peters D. A prospective study on effectiveness of elevated intraocular pressure as a criterion for glaucoma referrals by optometric practitioners in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;1:1–8. DOI: 10.1111/aos.14764.
12. Ratnarajan G., Newsom W., French K. et al. The impact of glaucoma referral refinement criteria on referral to, and first-visit discharge rates from, the hospital eye service: the Health Innovation & Education Cluster (HIEC) Glaucoma Pathways project. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2013;33(2):183–189. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12029.
13. Loskutov I.A., Ibatulin R.A. Early detection of glaucoma in optometric practice. Glaucoma. 2016;2:60–62 (in Russ.).
14. Tuck M.W., Crick R.P. Efficiency of referral for suspected glaucoma. BMJ. 1991;302(6783):998–1000. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.302.6783.998.
15. Sheldrick J.H., Ng C., Austin D.J. et al. An analysis of referral routes and diagnostic accuracy in cases of suspected glaucoma. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1994;1(1):31–39. DOI: 10.3109/09286589409071443.
16. Bell R.W., O’Brien C. The diagnostic outcome of new glaucoma referrals. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997;17(1):3–6. PMID: 9135805.
17. Vernon S.A. The changing pattern of glaucoma referrals by optometrists. Eye (Lond). 1998;12(Pt 5):854–857. DOI: 10.1038/eye.1998.217.
18. Newman D.K., Anwar S., Jordan K. Glaucoma screening by optometrists: positive predictive value of visual field testing. Eye (Lond). 1998;12(Pt 6):921–924. DOI: 10.1038/eye.1998.239.
19. Theodossiades J., Murdoch I. Positive predictive value of optometrist-initiated referrals for glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999;19(1):62–67. DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00410.x.
20. Bowling B., Chen S.D., Salmon J.F. Outcomes of referrals by community optometrists to a hospital glaucoma service. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(9):1102–1104. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2004.064378.
21. Harrison R.J., Wild J.M., Hobley A.J. Referral patterns to an ophthalmic outpatient clinic by general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the role of these professionals in screening for ocular disease. BMJ. 1988;297(6657):1162–1167. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.297.6657.1162.
22. Harper R.A., Reeves B.C. Glaucoma screening: the importance of combining test data. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(8):537–543. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199908000-00022.
23. Daubs J.G., Crick R.P. Epidemiological analysis of the King’s College Hospital glaucoma data. Res Clin Forums. 1980;2:41–59.
24. Edwards L.A., Taylor D.J., Campbell P. et al. Feeling the pressure: a cross-sectional study exploring feasibility of a healthcare Pop-Up for intraocular pressure measurements in shopping centres in England. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e030523. DOI: 10.1136/ bmjopen-2019-030523.
25. Barrett C., O’Brien C., Lougman J. Glaucoma referral refinement in Ireland: managing the sensitivity-specificity paradox in optometric practice. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2018;38(4):400–410. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12446.
26. Lockwood A.J., Kirwan J.F., Ashleigh Z. Optometrists referrals for glaucoma assessment: a prospective survey of clinical data and outcomes. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(9):1515–1519. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.77.
27. Tsai L.H., Hsieh H.P., Chen P.S. et al. Relationship between refractive correction, visual symptoms, and optical device selection for low-vision patients in Taiwan. J Optom. 2020;13(4):249–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2019.09.003.
28. Coffey A.M., Hutton E.K., Combe L. et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography in primary eye care. Clin Exp Optom. 2021;104(1):3–13. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.13068.
29. Geimer S.A. Glaucoma diagnostics. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91 Thesis 1:1–32. DOI: 10.1111/aos.12072.
30. Jamous K.F., Kalloniatis M., Hayen A. et al. Application of clinical techniques relevant for glaucoma assessment by optometrists: concordance with guidelines. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):580–591. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12146.
31. Dabasia P.L., Edgar D.F., Garway-Heath D.F., Lawrenson J.G. A survey of current and anticipated use of standard and specialist equipment by UK optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):592–613. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12150.
32. Baker H., Harper R.A., Edgar D.F., Lawrenson J.G. Multi-stakeholder perspectives of locally commissioned enhanced optometric services. BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e011934. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011934.
33. Barrett C., O’Brien C., Butler J.S., Loughman J. Barriers to glaucoma case finding as perceived by optometrists in Ireland. Clin Exp Optom. 2018;101(1):90–99. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12573.
34. Myint J., Edgar D.F., Kotecha A. et al. Barriers perceived by UK-based community optometrists to the detection of primary open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010;30(6):847–853. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00792.x.
35. Kekevian B. Moving Optometry Forward in Glaucoma. Review of Optometry (reviewofoptometry.com). 2020;4:50–58.
36. Harper R., Creer R., Jackson J. et al. Scope of practice of optometrists working in the UK Hospital Eye Service: a national survey. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36(2):197–206. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12262.
37. Burr J.M., Mowatt G., Hernández R. et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(41):1–190. DOI: 10.3310/hta11410.
38. Parkins D.J., Benwell M.J., Edgar D.F., Evans B.J.W. The relationship between unwarranted variation in optometric referrals and time since qualification. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2018;38(5):550–561. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12580.
39. Zangerl B., Hayen A., Mitchell P. et al. Therapeutic endorsement enhances compliance with national glaucoma guidelines in Australian and New Zealand optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015;35(2):212–224. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12197.
40. Devarajan N., Williams G.S., Hopes M. et al. The Carmarthenshire Glaucoma Referral Refinement Scheme, a safe and efficient screening service. Eye (Lond). 2011;25(1):43–49. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.136.
41. Parkins D.J., Edgar D.F. Comparison of the effectiveness of two enhanced glaucoma referral schemes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(4):343–352. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00853.x.
42. Jamous K.F., Kalloniatis M., Hennessy M.P. et al. Clinical model assisting with the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;43(4):308–319. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12466.
43. Jamous K.F., Jalbert I., Kalloniatis M., Boon M.Y. Australian optometric and ophthalmologic referral pathways for people with age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom. 2014;97(3):248–255. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12119.
44. Stagg B., Stein J.D., Medeiros F.A. et al. Interests and needs of eye care providers in clinical decision support for glaucoma. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021;6(1):e000639. DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000639.
45. Baker H., Ratnarajan G., Harper R.A. et al. Effectiveness of UK optometric enhanced eye care services: a realist review of the literature. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36(5):545–557. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12312.
46. Neroev V.V. Eye care management in Russian Federation. Vestnik Oftalmologii. 2014;130(6):8–12 (in Russ.).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.
Распечатать