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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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