BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER


[Advanced]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gray, S. F
Right arrow Articles by Easty, D. L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gray, S. F
Right arrow Articles by Easty, D. L
Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:456-463 ( May )

The Bristol shared care glaucoma study: outcome at follow up at 2 years

Selena F Graya, Paul G D Spry* b, Sara T Brookesa, Tim J Petersa, Ian C Spencerb, Ian A Bakerc, John M Sparrowb, David L Eastyb

a Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, b Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bristol, Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol BS1 2LX, c Department of Public Health Medicine, Avon Health, Bristol BS2 8EE

Correspondence to: Dr Selena Gray, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR selena.gray{at}bristol.ac.uk

Accepted for publication 18 August 1999

AIM---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.
METHODS---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).
RESULTS---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.
CONCLUSIONS---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.

* Current address: Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA

© 2000 by British Journal of Ophthalmology


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J. S Schuman
Glaucoma care: the patients' perspective. What do patients want?
Br. J. Ophthalmol., December 1, 2008; 92(12): 1571 - 1572.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J S Bhargava, A Bhan-Bhargava, A J E Foss, and A J King
Views of glaucoma patients on provision of follow-up care; an assessment of patient preferences by conjoint analysis
Br. J. Ophthalmol., December 1, 2008; 92(12): 1601 - 1605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
D Sim, A Hussain, A Tebbal, S Daly, E Pringle, and A Ionides
National survey of the management of eye emergencies in the accident and emergency departments by senior house officers: 10 years on--has anything changed?
Emerg. Med. J., February 1, 2008; 25(2): 76 - 77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
A Azuara-Blanco, J Burr, R Thomas, G Maclennan, and S McPherson
The accuracy of accredited glaucoma optometrists in the diagnosis and treatment recommendation for glaucoma
Br. J. Ophthalmol., December 1, 2007; 91(12): 1639 - 1643.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
S. Hau, D. Ehrlich, K. Binstead, and S. Verma
An evaluation of optometrists' ability to correctly identify and manage patients with ocular disease in the accident and emergency department of an eye hospital
Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2007; 91(4): 437 - 440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Diabetes EducatorHome page
E. B. King, R. P. Gregory, and M. E. Flannery
Feasibility test of a shared care network for children with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
The Diabetes Educator, September 1, 2006; 32(5): 723 - 733.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
A M S Morley and I Murdoch
The future of glaucoma clinics
Br. J. Ophthalmol., May 1, 2006; 90(5): 640 - 645.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
C E Traverso, J G Walt, S P Kelly, A H Hommer, A M Bron, P Denis, J-P Nordmann, J-P Renard, A Bayer, F Grehn, et al.
Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe
Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2005; 89(10): 1245 - 1249.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
S F Riad, J K G Dart, and R J Cooling
Primary care and ophthalmology in the United Kingdom
Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2003; 87(4): 493 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
R. Harrad
Local funding would reduce waiting lists for cataracts
BMJ, November 2, 2002; 325(7371): 1033 - 1033.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J L JAY
Care to share?
Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2000; 84(7): 677 - 678.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2000 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.