Holtzer-Goor Kim M, van Vliet Ellen J, van Sprundel Esther, Plochg Thomas, Koopmanschap Marc A, Klazinga Niek S, Lemij Hans G
*Department of Health Policy and Management, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam †Rotterdam Ophthalmic Institute, Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam §Department of Social Medicine, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ‡School of Public Health, KULeuven, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Glaucoma. 2016 Apr;25(4):e392-400. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000335.
Comparing the quality of care provided by a hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up unit with care as usual.
This randomized controlled trial included stable glaucoma patients and patients at risk for developing glaucoma. Patients in the Usual Care group (n=410) were seen by glaucoma specialists. In the glaucoma follow-up unit group (n=405), patients visited the glaucoma follow-up unit twice followed by a visit to a glaucoma specialist. The main outcome measures were: compliance to the working protocol by glaucoma follow-up unit employees; difference in intraocular pressure between baseline and at ≥18 months; and patient satisfaction.
Glaucoma follow-up unit employees closely adhered to the working protocol for the measurement of intraocular pressure, visual acuity and GDx (≥97.5% of all visits). Humphrey Field Analyzer examinations were not performed as frequently as prescribed by the working protocol, but more often than in the Usual Care group. In a small minority of patients that required back-referral, the protocol was disregarded, notably when criteria were only slightly exceeded. There was no statistically significant difference in changes in intraocular pressure between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.854). Patients were slightly more satisfied with the glaucoma follow-up unit employees than with the glaucoma specialists (scores: 8.56 vs. 8.40; P=0.006).
In general, the hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up closely observed its working protocol and patients preferred it slightly over the usual care provided by medical doctors. The glaucoma follow-up unit operated satisfactorily and might serve as a model for shared care strategies elsewhere.
比较医院共享照护青光眼随访单元提供的照护质量与常规照护的质量。
这项随机对照试验纳入了病情稳定的青光眼患者以及有患青光眼风险的患者。常规照护组(n = 410)由青光眼专科医生诊治。在青光眼随访单元组(n = 405)中,患者先到青光眼随访单元就诊两次,之后再去看青光眼专科医生。主要结局指标为:青光眼随访单元工作人员对工作流程的依从性;基线时与≥18个月时的眼压差异;以及患者满意度。
青光眼随访单元工作人员严格遵守眼压测量、视力检查和GDx的工作流程(所有就诊中≥97.5%)。Humphrey视野分析仪检查未按工作流程规定的频率进行,但比常规照护组更频繁。在少数需要转回上级医生处诊治的患者中,该流程未得到遵守,尤其是当标准仅被略微超过时。两个治疗组之间眼压变化无统计学显著差异(P = 0.854)。患者对青光眼随访单元工作人员的满意度略高于对青光眼专科医生的满意度(评分:8.56对8.40;P = 0.006)。
总体而言,医院共享照护青光眼随访严格遵守其工作流程,患者对其的偏好略高于医生提供的常规照护。青光眼随访单元运作良好,可作为其他地方共享照护策略的典范。