Refractive prescribing for preschool children by optometrists in England. (13th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thompson, Amy L.; Conway, Miriam L.; Ctori, Irene; Shah, Rakhee; Suttle, Catherine M.
• Is Part Of: Ophthalmic and physiological optics. Volume 43:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 6
• Page End: 16
• Publication Date: 2022-09-13
• Subjects: children -- England -- optometry -- prescribing -- refractive error; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; Physiological optics -- Periodicals; Optometry -- Periodicals; Optics -- Periodicals; Vision -- Periodicals; 617.75
• DOI: 10.1111/opo.13050
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0275-5408

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Correction of refractive error in children is important for visual and educational development. The aim of this questionnaire‐based study was to explore paediatric refractive correction by optometrists in England. Methods: An online questionnaire was piloted and distributed to optometrists in England. The questionnaire asked about respondents' characteristics (such as type of practice), management of refractive error in 1‐ and 3‐year‐old children and sources of information used as a basis for decisions on prescribing refractive error in children. Results: Two hundred and ninety‐three questionnaires were returned, although only 139 (47%) were fully completed. In an average month, about half of respondents examined no children between 0 and 2 years of age, and about half examined no more than five children aged 3–4 years. A significant proportion indicated they would refer children aged 1 or 3 years with refractive error and no other signs or symptoms into the hospital eye service. Almost a quarter would prescribe in full or in part an isometropic refractive correction of +2.00 D for a 3‐year‐old (within the normal range) with no other signs or symptoms, suggesting a degree of unnecessary prescribing. Almost all would act in cases of clinically significant refractive error. Respondents made similar use of their colleagues, optometric or postgraduate/continuing education, professional guidance and peer‐reviewed research as sources of evidence on which to base decisions about prescribing for paediatric refractive errors. Most reported 'never' or 'rarely' using Cochrane reviews. Conclusions: These results suggest optometrists often defer management of paediatric refractive error to the hospital eye service, with implications in terms of underutilisation of community optometric expertise and burden on the National Health Service. In some cases, the results indicate a mismatch between respondents' reported management and existing guidance/guidelines on paediatric prescribing.