Cargando…
Mismatch of corneal specialists’ expectations and keratoconus knowledge in general ophthalmologists - a prospective observational study in Switzerland
BACKGROUND: To assess whether Swiss general ophthalmologists have the minimal keratoconus knowledge that corneal specialists would expect them to have. METHODS: Corneal specialists defined “minimal keratoconus knowledge” (MKK) with respect to definition, risk factors, symptoms and possible treatment...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146633/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34030668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02738-0 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: To assess whether Swiss general ophthalmologists have the minimal keratoconus knowledge that corneal specialists would expect them to have. METHODS: Corneal specialists defined “minimal keratoconus knowledge” (MKK) with respect to definition, risk factors, symptoms and possible treatment options of keratoconus. A telephone interview survey was conducted among one hundred ophthalmologists (mean age 51.9 years (SD 9.5), 60 % male) from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. For each participant, years of work experience, number of keratoconus patients seen per year and access to a topography device were obtained. We calculated the proportion of MKK and examined in multivariate analyses whether ophthalmologists with access to topography and with greater work experience performed better than other groups. RESULTS: No single ophthalmologist had MKK. The mean MKK was 52.0 %, and the range was 28.6–81.0 %. Per 10 years of working in private practice, the MKK decreased by 8.1 % points (95 % CI: -14.2, -2.00; p = 0.01). Only 24 % of participants correctly recalled the definition of keratoconus, 9 % all risk factors, 5 % all symptoms and 20 % all treatment modalities. The MKK values were not associated with the number of keratoconus patients seen per year and the availability of topography to diagnose keratoconus. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial mismatch between corneal specialist’ expectations and general ophthalmologists’ knowledge about keratoconus. The low recall of symptoms and risk factors may explain why ophthalmologists diagnose relatively few cases of keratoconus, resulting in inefficient care delivery and delayed intervention. |
---|