Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
An optometric pespective on screening
- Trevor J Warburton (6 April 2002)
-
Clarification regarding 'technical failure'
- Somdutt Prasad (15 April 2002)
-
Correction to Author's reply
- Somdutt Prasad (15 April 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Trevor J Warburton, Independent Optometrist Warburton Optometrists, Stockport. SK1 4QA
Send response to journal:
|
As an optometrist who is involved in a retinal screening programme using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and who also uses a digital retinal camera in practice, I have a number of comments on the exchange of views regarding screening for diabetic retinopathy. I believe that the terms “technical failure” and “ungradeable images” are often used interchangeably, when in fact they are not the same. A technical failure implies that the camera did not obtain an image when it should have done, whilst an ungradeable image does not necessarily imply any failure of the equipment. This confusion has given rise to the myth that digital cameras will reduce the number of ungradeable images compared with film. A common technical failure is due to blinking, usually resulting in no useful image. This is identified immediately with a digital system, and a further photograph taken. Cataracts are a common cause of ungradeable images but there is no equipment failure. So digital cameras reduce some technical failures, but there is no evidence that they are intrinsically better with poor images. However, it is the case that a good retinal view can often be obtained through cataract by slit-lamp biomicroscopy when a photograph is of poor quality. Taylor and Riley[1] found in a general optometric practice that 6% of their patients with diabetes were ungradeable by any means, whilst a further 12% were ungradeable from photographs alone. The usual reason was cataract, with the majority of these patients aged over 70. Simply referring any patient with an ungradeable photograph, as suggested by Clements, will swamp over stretched ophthalmologists, unless an efficient 2nd level of grading is available. Clements suggests that training optometrists to use fundus lenses may be challenging. This plainly misunderstands the current competencies of optometrists, most of whom use such lenses regularly and many of whom are already involved in the 60 or so retinal screening programmes throughout the UK. Patient education and involvement is very desirable, as is providing an instant result for the patient, but both of these require the ability to grade fully at the time of photography, which will require an ophthalmologist, an optometrist or a highly trained grader. The most appropriate screening arrangements will vary from area to area. With a large general practice, a visiting mobile camera may make sense. In my area, with a high proportion of single-handed GP practices, it may be more problematic. Given the current interest in retinal cameras, I predict that in a short number of years the largest installed base of such cameras will be in optometric practices. Most of these will be recent models and will meet the resolution standards of the National Screening Committee. It would seem sensible to make use of these rather than duplicate costs. 1. Taylor L, Riley A. Internal Practice Audit. 2001 Optometry Today 27th Oct. 2001. | |||
|
|
|||
|
Somdutt Prasad, Consultant Ophthalmologist Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust CH49 5PE
Send response to journal:
|
I appreciate Trevor Warburton's comments and am in broad agreement with his views. He presents an excellent summary of the optometrists perspective and highlights many important issues. About the issue of 'technical failure'; it can be interpreted as a failure of the screening system or a failure of the particular modality (ie a equipment failure). To enable comparison between different modalities of screening, we have assumed that a 'technical failure' is a failure of the particular modality of screening. The latter definition, whilst equally acceptable, cannot be used as the basis of comparison between two systems which use different equipment-sets. Thank You |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Somdutt Prasad, C
Send response to journal:
|
The definition of sight threatening retinopathy we had used in our submission was "clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) and/or proliferative disease ". The editorial process has altered this to "clinically significant macular oedema with or without proliferative disease" giving the impression that CSMO is an essential feature of 'sight threatening retinoapthy' This gives the impression of an incorrect definition of sight threatening retinopathy. Our intention was to define it as either CSMO or proliferative disease or both. Neither CSMO nor proliferative disease is a prerequisite in the definition of sight threatening retinopathy. Thank You |
|||