Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care. Issue 1 (January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Ling; Burnett, Anthea M.; D'Esposito, Fabrizio; Fricke, Tim; Nguyen, Long Tien; Vuong, Duong Anh; Nguyen, Hien Thi Thu; Yu, Mitasha; Nguyen, Ngoc Viet My; Huynh, Ly Phuong; Ho, Suit May
• Is Part Of: Optometry and vision science. Volume 98:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01
• Subjects: Optometry -- Periodicals; Physiological optics -- Periodicals; Vision disorders -- Periodicals; 617.7505
• DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001629
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-5488

Abstract

Abstract : SIGNIFICANCE: Quality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established. PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs). METHODS: Patient outcomes and three quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) indicators (1, optimally prescribed spectacles; 2, adequately prescribed spectacles; 3, vector dioptric distance) were developed using existing literature, refraction training standards, and consulting educators. Twenty-one USPs with various refractive errors were trained to visit optical stores across Vietnam to have a refraction, observe techniques, and order spectacles. Spectacles were assessed against each Q.REC indicator and tested for associations with vision and comfort. RESULTS: Overall, 44.1% (184/417) of spectacles provided good vision and comfort. Of the spectacles that met Q.REC indicators 1 and 2, 62.5 and 54.9%, respectively, provided both good vision and comfort. Optimally prescribed spectacles (indicator 1) were significantly more likely to provide good vision and comfort independently compared with spectacles that did not meet any indicator (good vision: 94.6 vs. 85.0%, P = .01; comfortable: 66.1 vs. 36.3%, P < .01). Adequately prescribed spectacles (indicator 2) were more likely to provide good comfort compared with spectacles not meeting any indicator (57.7 vs. 36.3%, P < .01); however, vision outcomes were not significantly different (85.9 vs. 85.0%, P = .90). Good vision was associated with a lower mean vector dioptric distance ( P < .01) but not with comfort ( P = .52). CONCLUSIONS: The optimally prescribed spectacles indicator is a promising approach for assessing the quality of refractive error care without additional assessments of vision and comfort. Using USPs is a practical approach and could be used as a standardized method for evaluating the quality of refractive error care. Abstract : Supplemental digital content is available in the text.