Evaluating referrals of flashing lights and floaters coming into secondary care from primary care

ABSTRACT

Clinical Relevance

Optometrists should look to take every opportunity to expand their knowledge, understanding and skills pertaining to vitreoretinal conditions.

Background

Despite the existence of acute eye care schemes and the up-skilling of optometrists, many units are still noticing large numbers of poor-quality referrals with high false positive rates. The authors pondered whether these schemes are effective.

Methods

At two different time points, a prospective analysis of patients took place, of all the flashing lights and floaters referrals coming into secondary care at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Wales, UK. The following data was captured: the exact source of the primary care referral, the diagnosis being queried, the secondary care diagnoses made and the secondary care management decisions. The accuracy of retinal break and Shafer’s sign detection were also directly compared between primary care and secondary care using Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient.

Results

For the 2018 period, n = 51 patients were included. For the 2022–23 period n = 100 patients were included. The majority of referrals during both periods were from optometrists (>80%) via the WECS pathway. The most common diagnoses being queried were retinal breaks (~50%), followed by retinal detachments (~20%). Interestingly up to 20% of patients seen in secondary care were diagnosed as normal examinations and ~ 20%. Over 1/3 of patients were discharged after their first visit to the EEC. Statistically significant differences were found between the accuracy of retinal tear and Shafer’s identification between the primary and secondary care settings.

Conclusion

A high number of false positive referrals are coming into secondary care from the WECS pathway and clear training and education needs have been identified.

KEYWORDS:

• Acute eyecare
• flashing and floaters
• primary eyecare
• secondary eyecare
• vitreoretinal

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).