Resource Planning in Glaucoma: A Tool to Evaluate Glaucoma Service Capacity. (18th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Batra, Ruchika; Sharma, Hannah E; Elaraoud, Ibrahim; Mohamed, Shabbir
• Is Part Of: Seminars in ophthalmology. Volume 33:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 733
• Page End: 738
• Publication Date: 2018-08-18
• Subjects: Audit -- service capacity -- patient safety -- glaucoma -- NICE guidelines; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; Eye -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Eye -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.7005
• DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2017.1418012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0882-0538

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: The National Patient Safety Agency (2009) publication advising timely follow-up of patients with established glaucoma followed several reported instances of visual loss due to postponed appointments and patients lost to follow-up. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Quality Standards Development Group stated that all hospital appointments should occur within 15% of the intended follow-up period. Aim: To determine whether: 1. Glaucoma follow-up appointments at a teaching hospital occur within the requested time 2. Appointments are requested at appropriate intervals based on the NICE Guidelines 3. The capacity of the glaucoma service is adequate Methods: A two-part audit was undertaken of 98 and 99 consecutive patients respectively attending specialist glaucoma clinics. In the first part, the reasons for delayed appointments were recorded. In the second part the requested follow-up was compared with NICE guidelines where applicable. Based on the findings, changes were implemented and a re-audit of 100 patients was carried out. Results: The initial audit found that although clinical decisions regarding follow-up intervals were 100% compliant with NICE guidelines where applicable, 24% of appointments were delayed beyond 15% of the requested period, due to administrative errors and inadequate capacity, leading to significant clinical deterioration in two patients. Following the introduction of an electronic appointment tracker and increased clinical capacity created by extra clinics and clinicians, the re-audit found a marked decrease in the percentage of appointments being delayed (9%). Conclusions: This audit is a useful tool to evaluate glaucoma service provision, assist in resource planning for the service and bring about change in a non-confrontational way. It can be widely applied and adapted for use in other medical specialities.