Anterior eye health recording

, James S. Wolffsohn, Shehzad A. Naroo, Caroline Christie, Judith Morris, Robert Conway, Carole Maldonado-Codina, R. Conway, Y. Norgett, G. Mouat, K. Evans, C. Purslow, C. Christie, B. Huntjens, J. Morris, A. Lloyd, K. Oliver, L. Madden, A. Cochrane, P. Richardson & 6 others N. Retallic, L. Simo, J. Savage, J. Underwood, D. Dunning, T. Harknett

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    8 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Aims: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. 

    Methods: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. 

    Results: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p<. 0.001), sketches (p= 0.002) and grading scales (p<. 0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p= 0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5% used a grading scale, 13.5% using two, with the original Efron (51.6%) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5%) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6% (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6% (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4%) and just 14.7% to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8 ± 5.7. min, with the maximum time available 14.0 ± 11. min. 

    Conclusions: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined.

    LanguageEnglish
    Pages266-271
    Number of pages6
    JournalContact Lens and Anterior Eye
    Volume38
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2015

    Fingerprint

    Health
    Practice Guidelines
    Hyperemia
    Blepharitis
    Meibomian Glands
    Photography
    Contact Lenses
    Blister
    Fluorescein
    Guidelines
    Staining and Labeling
    Light
    Surveys and Questionnaires
    Research

    Keywords

    • Anterior eye health
    • Best practice
    • Contact lenses
    • Grading
    • Photography
    • Record keeping
    • Sketching

    Cite this

    Aston University. / Anterior eye health recording. 2015 ; Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 266-271.
    @article{0dc0e102bd1548df874b9b38257fec51,
    title = "Anterior eye health recording",
    abstract = "Aims: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. Methods: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. Results: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p<. 0.001), sketches (p= 0.002) and grading scales (p<. 0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p= 0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5{\%} used a grading scale, 13.5{\%} using two, with the original Efron (51.6{\%}) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5{\%}) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6{\%} (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6{\%} (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4{\%}) and just 14.7{\%} to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8 ± 5.7. min, with the maximum time available 14.0 ± 11. min. Conclusions: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined.",
    keywords = "Anterior eye health, Best practice, Contact lenses, Grading, Photography, Record keeping, Sketching",
    author = "Wolffsohn, {James S.} and Naroo, {Shehzad A.} and Caroline Christie and Judith Morris and Robert Conway and Carole Maldonado-Codina and R. Conway and Y. Norgett and G. Mouat and K. Evans and C. Purslow and C. Christie and B. Huntjens and J. Morris and A. Lloyd and K. Oliver and L. Madden and A. Cochrane and P. Richardson and N. Retallic and L. Simo and J. Savage and J. Underwood and D. Dunning and T. Harknett",
    year = "2015",
    month = "8",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.001",
    language = "English",
    volume = "38",
    pages = "266--271",
    number = "4",

    }

    Aston University 2015, 'Anterior eye health recording', vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.001

    Anterior eye health recording. / Aston University.

    Vol. 38, No. 4, 01.08.2015, p. 266-271.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Anterior eye health recording

    AU - Wolffsohn, James S.

    AU - Naroo, Shehzad A.

    AU - Christie, Caroline

    AU - Morris, Judith

    AU - Conway, Robert

    AU - Maldonado-Codina, Carole

    AU - Conway, R.

    AU - Norgett, Y.

    AU - Mouat, G.

    AU - Evans, K.

    AU - Purslow, C.

    AU - Christie, C.

    AU - Huntjens, B.

    AU - Morris, J.

    AU - Lloyd, A.

    AU - Oliver, K.

    AU - Madden, L.

    AU - Cochrane, A.

    AU - Richardson, P.

    AU - Retallic, N.

    AU - Simo, L.

    AU - Savage, J.

    AU - Underwood, J.

    AU - Dunning, D.

    AU - Harknett, T.

    PY - 2015/8/1

    Y1 - 2015/8/1

    N2 - Aims: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. Methods: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. Results: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p<. 0.001), sketches (p= 0.002) and grading scales (p<. 0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p= 0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5% used a grading scale, 13.5% using two, with the original Efron (51.6%) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5%) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6% (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6% (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4%) and just 14.7% to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8 ± 5.7. min, with the maximum time available 14.0 ± 11. min. Conclusions: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined.

    AB - Aims: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. Methods: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. Results: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p<. 0.001), sketches (p= 0.002) and grading scales (p<. 0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p= 0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5% used a grading scale, 13.5% using two, with the original Efron (51.6%) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5%) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6% (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6% (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4%) and just 14.7% to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8 ± 5.7. min, with the maximum time available 14.0 ± 11. min. Conclusions: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined.

    KW - Anterior eye health

    KW - Best practice

    KW - Contact lenses

    KW - Grading

    KW - Photography

    KW - Record keeping

    KW - Sketching

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940890368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.001

    DO - 10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.001

    M3 - Article

    VL - 38

    SP - 266

    EP - 271

    IS - 4

    ER -