Evidence mapPaperPMID 39358440Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2024

Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS): a mixed methods service evaluation.

Michelle Dinsdale, Cecilia H Fenerty, Wendy Craven, Rebecca Ireland, Patrick J G Gunn, Rachel Hilton, Jonathan Yu, Matthew Jinkinson, Robert A Harper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michelle DinsdaleManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. michelle.dinsdale@mft.nhs.uk.ORCID 0009-0000-4753-5000
Cecilia H FenertyManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Wendy CravenPrimary Eyecare Service, 2.3 Waulk Mill, 51 Bengal Street, Manchester, M4 6LN, UK.
Rebecca IrelandPrimary Eyecare Service, 2.3 Waulk Mill, 51 Bengal Street, Manchester, M4 6LN, UK.
Patrick J G GunnManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0631-9405
Rachel HiltonManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Jonathan YuManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Matthew JinkinsonGreater Manchester Eye Health Network, Health & Social Care Partnership, 3 Piccadilly Place, London Road, Manchester, M1 3BN, UK.
Robert A HarperManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5437-2553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of a Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS), with low-risk glaucoma patients being reviewed within primary care optometry.

methods98 low-risk glaucoma patients were identified as suitable for monitoring in primary care and reviewed by accredited optometrists in community practice supported by a clinical management plan. Safety was assessed by reviewing concordance of management plans created by primary care optometrists and the secondary care team. Patients' and primary care optometrists' feedback were collated via surveys. Carbon emissions were calculated through comparison of patient travel to primary and secondary care.

results93.8% of patients reviewed by primary care met criteria for ongoing monitoring in primary care after initial review with 4.9% of patients being recalled to secondary care due to clinical instability. Safety and efficacy were demonstrated with agreement of management plans between primary and secondary care of 97.8%, kappa =0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.60-1.00), with no patients being identified as false negatives where recall back to secondary care was required. Overall satisfaction with PEGS was 100% according to a patient survey. Respondents of the primary care optometry survey felt very or somewhat confident in delivering care, with comments suggesting they felt supported by secondary care. Carbon emissions are reduced by approximately two thirds when patients are seen in primary care versus attending the hospital.

conclusionPEGS is a safe and effective service, reducing the burden for secondary care, while carbon emissions are reduced due to shorter travelling distances, demonstrating environmental sustainability.

Indexed as

GlaucomaPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOptometryPatient SatisfactionPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID39358440
PMCPMC11621407

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.