Cargando…
Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7774814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33394928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001629 |
_version_ | 1783630341701894144 |
---|---|
author | 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 |
author_facet | 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 |
author_sort | Lee, Ling |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7774814 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77748142021-01-06 Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care 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 Optom Vis Sci Original Investigations 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. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-01 2020-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7774814/ /pubmed/33394928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001629 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigations 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 Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title | Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title_full | Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title_fullStr | Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title_full_unstemmed | Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title_short | Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Refractive Error Care |
title_sort | indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care |
topic | Original Investigations |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7774814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33394928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001629 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leeling indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT burnettantheam indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT despositofabrizio indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT fricketim indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT nguyenlongtien indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT vuongduonganh indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT nguyenhienthithu indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT yumitasha indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT nguyenngocvietmy indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT huynhlyphuong indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare AT hosuitmay indicatorsforassessingthequalityofrefractiveerrorcare |