Gray S F, Spry P G, Brookes S T, Peters T J, Spencer I C, Baker I A, Sparrow J M, Easty D L
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 May;84(5):456-63. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.5.456.
To examine the outcome of care for patients with glaucoma followed up by the hospital eye service compared with those followed up by community optometrists.
A randomised study with patients allocated to follow up by the hospital eye service or community optometrists was carried out in the former county of Avon in south west England. 403 patients with established or suspected primary open angle glaucoma attending Bristol Eye Hospital and meeting defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were studied. The mean number of missed points on visual field testing in the better eye (using a "better/worse" eye analysis) in each group were measured. The visual field was measured using the Henson semiautomated central field analyser (CFA 3000). Measurements were made by the research team on all patients at baseline before randomisation and again 2 years after randomisation. The mean number of missed points on visual field testing in the worse eye, mean intraocular pressure (mm Hg), and cup disc ratio using a "better/worse" eye analysis in each group at 2 years were also measured. Measurements were made by the research team on all patients at baseline before randomisation and again 2 years after randomisation. An analysis of covariance comparing method of follow up taking into account baseline measurements of outcome variables was carried out. Additional control was considered for age, sex, diagnostic group (glaucoma suspect/established primary open angle glaucoma), and treatment (any/none).
From examination of patient notes, 2780 patients with established or suspected glaucoma were identified. Of these, 752 (27.1%) fulfilled the entry criteria. For hospital and community follow up group respectively, mean number of missed points on visual field testing at 2 year follow up for better eye was 7.9 points and 6.8 points; for the worse eye 20.2 points and 18.4 points. Similarly, intraocular pressure was 19.3 mm Hg and 19.3 mm Hg (better eye), and 19.1 mm Hg and 19.0 mm Hg (worse eye); cup disc ratio at 2 year follow up was 0.72 and 0.72 (better eye), and 0.74 and 0.74 for hospital and community follow up group respectively. No significant differences in any of the key visual variables were found between the two groups before or after adjusting for baseline values and age, sex, treatment, and type of glaucoma.
It is feasible to set and run shared care schemes for a proportion of patients with suspected and established glaucoma using community optometrists. After 2 years (a relatively short time in the life of a patient with glaucoma), there were no marked or statistically significant differences in outcome between patients followed up in the hospital eye service or by community optometrists. Decisions to implement such schemes need to be based on careful consideration of the costs of such schemes and local circumstances, including geographical access and the current organisation of glaucoma care within the hospital eye service.
比较由医院眼科服务机构随访的青光眼患者与由社区验光师随访的青光眼患者的护理结果。
在英格兰西南部原阿冯郡进行了一项随机研究,将患者分配为由医院眼科服务机构或社区验光师进行随访。对403例就诊于布里斯托尔眼科医院且符合既定纳入和排除标准的已确诊或疑似原发性开角型青光眼患者进行了研究。测量了每组中较好眼(采用“较好/较差”眼分析)视野测试中漏诊点数的平均值。使用亨森半自动中心视野分析仪(CFA 3000)测量视野。在随机分组前,研究团队对所有患者进行了基线测量,随机分组2年后再次进行测量。还测量了每组在2年时较差眼视野测试中漏诊点数的平均值、平均眼压(毫米汞柱)以及采用“较好/较差”眼分析的杯盘比。在随机分组前,研究团队对所有患者进行了基线测量,随机分组2年后再次进行测量。进行了协方差分析,比较随访方法,并考虑了结果变量的基线测量值。还考虑了年龄、性别、诊断组(青光眼疑似患者/已确诊原发性开角型青光眼)和治疗情况(接受治疗/未接受治疗)的额外对照。
通过查阅患者病历,确定了2780例已确诊或疑似青光眼的患者。其中,752例(27.1%)符合入选标准。对于医院随访组和社区随访组,在2年随访时,较好眼视野测试中漏诊点数的平均值分别为7.9点和6.8点;较差眼分别为20.2点和18.4点。同样,眼压在较好眼分别为19.3毫米汞柱和19.3毫米汞柱,在较差眼分别为19.1毫米汞柱和19.0毫米汞柱;在2年随访时,医院随访组和社区随访组的杯盘比在较好眼分别为0.72和0.72,在较差眼分别为0.74和0.74。在调整基线值以及年龄、性别、治疗和青光眼类型后,两组在任何关键视觉变量上均未发现显著差异。
对于一部分疑似和已确诊青光眼患者,利用社区验光师制定并实施共享护理方案是可行的。2年后(对于青光眼患者的病程来说相对较短),由医院眼科服务机构随访的患者与由社区验光师随访的患者在护理结果上没有明显的或统计学上的显著差异。实施此类方案的决策需要仔细考虑此类方案的成本以及当地情况,包括地理可及性和医院眼科服务机构内当前的青光眼护理组织情况。