Expanding Community Eye Care for Glaucoma: a Pilot Ophthalmic Diagnostic and Treatment Centre

Expanding community eye care for glaucoma: a pilot Ophthalmic Diagnostic and Treatment Centre

Author: Helen Lee; Publisher: RNIB; Year of Publication: 2015

Revised: February 2016

Key findings from the evaluation

With the successful implementation of an optometry-led Ophthalmic Diagnostic and Treatment Centre (ODTC) for glaucoma:

·  Waiting times between appointments were reduced.

·  The hospital rescheduled fewer appointments in general ophthalmology outpatient clinics. Although one in four appointments at the ODTC were rescheduled adding, on average, 29 days between appointments.

·  Patient satisfaction with the ODTC was almost universal.

The lack of readily available routine data with which to identify glaucoma patients and their appointment activity presented challenges to the evaluation of the pilot.

The actual cost of the ODTC pilot was £291.56 per patient seen; this includes significant staff training costs. Without training costs, and assuming the ODTC was to operate at full capacity with no DNAs (did not attend) the cost would be £122.48 per patient.

Background

Glaucoma is the second most common cause of certified sight loss in the UK. 3,291 people in England and 192 people in Wales aged over 40 were certified as visually impaired due to glaucoma, between 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2013 (1). With early detection and treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma visual field loss can often be prevented or minimized. There is an association between people experiencing high rates of socioeconomic deprivation and presenting in health care settings with advanced glaucoma (2, 3, 4, 5).

There is increasing demand on ophthalmology departments but without increasing resource this has led to a serious problem of lack of capacity. This has resulted in follow-up appointments being delayed and many incidences of patients not receiving appropriate treatment in a timely fashion (6). Recent research conducted for RNIB Cymru found Consultant Ophthalmologists in six Welsh Health Boards stating that patients are losing their sight due to excessive waiting times (7).

In 2011 RNIB began work with Cwm Taf Health Board in South Wales to explore barriers to accessing eye care services and identify potential interventions to prevent avoidable sight loss. Public Health Wales conducted an eye health equity profile (8) and Shared Intelligence undertook qualitative research with service users and service providers (9). Informed by these pieces of work it was agreed that RNIB and Cwm Taf Health Board would work in partnership to pilot a new service for people with ocular hypertension and ‘stable’ glaucoma. The service is called an Ophthalmic Diagnostic and Treatment Centre (ODTC).

The development and implementation of ODTCs to help manage capacity issues within ophthalmology departments and improve the patient pathway is central to the Welsh Government’s, five year Eye Health Care Delivery Plan (2013). This pilot project was designed to gather learning prior to the roll out of ODTCs; to consider patient flow, assess impact on quality of service, patient satisfaction, waiting times and attendance at both the ODCT and consultant led ophthalmology clinics.

Methods

The Ophthalmic Diagnostic and Treatment Centre (ODTC) was designed to provide a service for people aged over 40 living in a particular area of high socioeconomic deprivation within the Rhondda Valley. The ODTC aimed to:

·  Reduce waiting times for the management of people with stable glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

·  Improve patient satisfaction offering a more flexible service closer to home.

·  Improve service uptake and reduce non-attendance at secondary care glaucoma clinics.

The service was located in a local community hospital and was originally designed to be led by a specialist nurse managing a team of technicians, seeing patients with ‘stable’ glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Patients with ‘stable’ glaucoma refers to those who, for a period of two years have: experienced no new symptoms which could be attributable to progressive visual deterioration (such as a drop in acuity or subjective change of a paracentral visual field defect); intraocular pressure remaining below a level satisfactory for the individual patient; no change in the optic disc appearance; and no significant change in visual field.

Over the period of implementation the service evolved to be optometry-led, seeing patients with suspect, stable and ‘simple’ glaucoma and ocular hypertension. More information about the changes in staffing are provided in the process evaluation section of this briefing. ‘Simple’ glaucoma refers to patients who do not require consultant care (unlike complex cases) but may not have been ‘stable’ for two years.

The service was nurse-led from July 2012 to June 2013; in July 2013 it became optometrist led. Evaluation data was collected until mid November 2014. Cwm Taf Health Board has continued to fund the ODTC beyond the lifetime of the pilot project.

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) conducted independent process, outcome and economic evaluation of the pilot. There were five components of the evaluation:

1. Analysis of routine hospital data
2. Patient satisfaction surveys conducted before and after the introduction of the new services
3. Follow-up interviews with patients attending the ODTC
4. Process interviews with key people involved in the development, implementation and delivery of the ODTC
5. A cost consequence analysis.

The evaluation included a comparison group of patients with ‘stable’ or ‘simple’ glaucoma living in the Cynon Valley and using ophthalmology services in various local hospitals.

The evaluation was granted NHS ethical approval from Bromley Research Ethics Committee (11/LO/1264) and local Research Development (R&D) office approval from Cwm Taf Health Board (CT/214/80513/11/12).

Findings from analysis of routine data

For baseline data appointment activity of 1,429 patients was analysed for a minimum of one year prior to the opening of the ODTC. One third of patients (435/1,429) were from the intervention area.

For the follow up period, once the ODTC was operating as an optometry-led, appointment data for 1,412 patients was analysed. As at baseline nearly a third of patients were from the intervention site (421/1,421).

At baseline:

·  The mean interval between appointments (excluding new referrals) was 160 days.

·  The average waiting time between appointments was significantly longer for people from the intervention area. People in the intervention area waited on average 208 days compared to those from the comparison site who waited on average 137 days.

·  Over one in five follow-up appointments were rescheduled by the hospital (23%) adding on average 48 days to the interval between appointments.

·  Newly referred patients did not experience rescheduling of appointments to the same extent as continuing patients, which may be related to performance targets.

·  Only 5% of patients did not attend (DNA) their ophthalmology outpatient appointment.

At follow up:

·  The mean number of days between appointments for patients from the intervention area reduced 208 days to 126 days for those seen at the non-ODTC clinics and 111 days for those seen at the ODTC.

·  There was no longer a significant difference in waiting times between appointments for patients from the intervention and comparison areas.

·  Rescheduling of appointments at non-ODTC clinics was reduced to 10% (compared to 23% at baseline) adding an average of 53 days to the interval between appointments.

·  However, 25% of appointments were rescheduled for patients attending the ODTC. On average extending the interval between appointments by 29 days.

·  Only 4.6% of patients did not attend (DNA) at the ODTC clinic and 3.6% of non-ODTC clinics.

At the same time as the ODTC was established the general ophthalmology outpatient clinics were reorganised.

The table below summarises this information.

Measure / At baseline / At follow up
Non-ODTC clinics / ODTC
The mean interval between appointments / 160 days / 126 days / 111 days
Appointments cancelled by the hospital / 23% / 10% / 25%
Extra days added due to hospital rescheduling / 48 days / 53 days / 29 days
Patient did not attend (DNA) / 5% / 4% / 5%

The lack of readily available routine data with which to identify glaucoma patients and their appointment activity presented challenges to the evaluation of the pilot. It is also likely to inhibit effective service planning. At the outset of the project it was assumed non attendance by patients (DNAs) was a significant problem that the ODTC would help to address. Once the independent evaluators LSHTM had analysed hospital data it became apparent that DNAs were at such a low level there was little room for improvement; however hospital initiated cancellation were a significant problem.

Findings from the patient satisfaction survey

At baseline:

·  86 usable questionnaires were completed by glaucoma patients attending general ophthalmology clinics; 24 were from the intervention area and 59 from the comparison site.

·  66% of patients thought it important to see a doctor.

·  48% of patients were shown how to administer their eye drops.

At follow up:

·  112 useable questionnaires were completed, 53 from ODTC and 59 from the general ophthalmology clinic.

·  Patients at the ODTC travelled less distance, were less likely to use a car and incurred less travel costs.

·  Only 26% felt it important to see a doctor compared to 66% at baseline.

·  In response to an open question, patients most commonly reported that they didn’t mind who they saw as long as

“they know what they are doing”; “are qualified”; “properly trained”; and “know their job”.

·  ODTC patients were younger than those seen elsewhere and a lower proportion reported co-morbidities.

·  Fewer ODTC patients reported being ‘bothered’ by their treatment.

·  50% of ODTC patients reported being shown how to use their drops and 71% of patients in general ophthalmology clinics compared to 48% of patients at baseline.

The table below summarises this information.

Measure / At baseline / At follow up
Non-ODTC clinics / ODTC
Usable questionnaires / 86 / 59 / 53
Felt it important to see a doctor / 66% / 43% / 26%
Shown how to administer eye drops / 48% / 71% / 50%

Process evaluation

Staffing and tests

Telephone interviews were conducted with six staff members involved in developing and implementing the ODTC.

It was originally intended that that ODTC in the Rhondda Valley would be led by a specialist nurse, supported by two Band 3 ophthalmic technicians. The nurse would provide:

·  Patients with advice about treatment adherence.

·  Visual fields interpretation.

·  Optic disc assessment.

·  Stereo-disc photography.

The ophthalmic technicians would conduct:

·  Visual acuity (Snellen).

·  Visual fields (field of vision).

·  Pachymetry (thickness of the cornea).

·  Goldmann Applanation tonometry (inner eye pressure).

·  Pharmacological dilatation of the pupils (shape and appearance of the optic nerve).

However, a number of challenges emerged with this arrangement. Most importantly perhaps it was realised that the lead person needed more diagnostic expertise if the ODTC was to save time and provide efficiencies.

The rural location of the Rhondda Valley ODTC was found to be one of the major reasons why a nurse-led model did not prove suitable. The ODTC was not located close to a specialist ophthalmology- led clinic, so if any concerns emerged, it was not possible for staff to easily ask the consultant to assess and advise, or simply redirect the patient from the ODTC back into the general clinic, without additional appointments. During the pilot phase the ODTC was not linked to ophthalmology practitioners electronically. In the absence of specialist training pathways for nurses in this field, the development of the necessary expertise relied on learning through experience ‘on the job’. The lack of sufficiently specialist skills, combined with the lack of electronic/digital facilities to share data, necessitated referring patients from the ODTC back into the hospital system for a second opinion. While this was essential for the safety and well-being of patients, it undermined one of the original aims: namely to reduce the necessity for patients to attend the hospital out-patient clinics.

Therefore a decision was made to appoint two part-time optometrists in place of the specialist nurse to lead a team of ophthalmic technicians. In preparation for leading the ODTC the optometrists worked alongside the consultant ophthalmologist for several months. The optometrists competency for seeing patients within the ODTC was established by competency based supervised practice, working alongside the consultant ophthalmologist in his general clinic prior to starting in ODTC.

In line with NICE guidance (10) the optometrists leading the ODTC had specialist qualifications in glaucoma management. One had a post graduate certificate in ‘Optometric Management of Glaucoma’ from City University London, and the other had a diploma in glaucoma from WOPEC (Wales Optometry Postgraduate Education Centre) as well as the College of Optometrist’s professional certificate in glaucoma. In addition the optometrists had considerable experience working alongside the Consultant Ophthalmologist managing the treatment of patients with OHT and glaucoma. The Consultant Ophthalmologist gave consent for the optometrists to lead the ODTC once they had completed specific training with him and he was confident of their competency to diagnose, monitor, treat and detect change in clinical status of patients with OHT, simple and stable glaucoma.

Once deemed competent, the consultant would review the notes of the patients seen on a weekly basis. There is no national electronic patient record (EPR) available; therefore the consultant would review the notes, visual fields and 3D images the following day prior to starting his own clinic. Any discrepancies between findings and decision making were highlighted to the optometrist. In addition to this, patients who showed deterioration of their visual field, disc appearance or control of inter-ocular pressure at the ODTC were booked back into the consultant led clinic. Therefore review of ODTC findings also happened as part of the process of clinicians reviewing patient’s notes prior to seeing a patient. Consultant support was available for the ODTC provided by non glaucoma consultant led clinics running alongside the ODTC and specialist Glaucoma advice was available by telephone from the District General Hospital. With two optometrists working in the clinic, inter-optometry peer support and review was available between staff.

Within the ODTC the optometrists provided advice to patients about treatment adherence, examined patients, reviewed their conditions, analysed the results of the tests conducted by technicians and prescribed, advised, or referred accordingly. If optometrists noted some concerns, such as the deterioration of a patient’s condition, but felt these were not major enough to warrant a referral to the hospital, they could make another appointment sooner than they would routinely and so keep the patient under closer review. If, for example, a cataract was detected, the optometrists could refer the patient directly for an operation without the patient having to be seen in the ophthalmologist’s clinic first for a referral to surgery. They also undertook gonioscopy tests (to assess the angle in the eye where the iris meets the cornea).