Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? the icaretrack feasibility study

Kam Chun Ho, Dian Rahardjo, Fiona Stapleton, Louise Wiles, Peter D. Hibbert, Andrew J.R. White, Andrew Hayen, Isabelle Jalbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives The CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery. Design Cross-sectional feasibility study. Setting and participants Two hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling. Methods Retrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Primary outcome measure Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received. Results A median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69% (95% CI 67% to 70%) for preventative eye care, 60% (95% CI 56% to 58%) for glaucoma and 63% (95% CI 57% to 69%) for diabetic eye care. Conclusions Appropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.

LanguageEnglish
Article number024298
JournalBMJ open
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019

Keywords

  • Appropriateness of care
  • Diabetic retinopathy
  • Glaucoma
  • Preventative eyecare
  • Record audit
  • Record review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Ho, Kam Chun ; Rahardjo, Dian ; Stapleton, Fiona ; Wiles, Louise ; Hibbert, Peter D. ; White, Andrew J.R. ; Hayen, Andrew ; Jalbert, Isabelle. / Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? the icaretrack feasibility study. In: BMJ open. 2019 ; Vol. 9, No. 3.
@article{94c90ab6f73b44faacdbe953f43a7266,
title = "Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? the icaretrack feasibility study",
abstract = "Objectives The CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery. Design Cross-sectional feasibility study. Setting and participants Two hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling. Methods Retrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Primary outcome measure Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received. Results A median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69{\%} (95{\%} CI 67{\%} to 70{\%}) for preventative eye care, 60{\%} (95{\%} CI 56{\%} to 58{\%}) for glaucoma and 63{\%} (95{\%} CI 57{\%} to 69{\%}) for diabetic eye care. Conclusions Appropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.",
keywords = "Appropriateness of care, Diabetic retinopathy, Glaucoma, Preventative eyecare, Record audit, Record review",
author = "Ho, {Kam Chun} and Dian Rahardjo and Fiona Stapleton and Louise Wiles and Hibbert, {Peter D.} and White, {Andrew J.R.} and Andrew Hayen and Isabelle Jalbert",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024298",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? the icaretrack feasibility study. / Ho, Kam Chun; Rahardjo, Dian; Stapleton, Fiona; Wiles, Louise; Hibbert, Peter D.; White, Andrew J.R.; Hayen, Andrew; Jalbert, Isabelle.

In: BMJ open, Vol. 9, No. 3, 024298, 01.03.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? the icaretrack feasibility study

AU - Ho, Kam Chun

AU - Rahardjo, Dian

AU - Stapleton, Fiona

AU - Wiles, Louise

AU - Hibbert, Peter D.

AU - White, Andrew J.R.

AU - Hayen, Andrew

AU - Jalbert, Isabelle

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Objectives The CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery. Design Cross-sectional feasibility study. Setting and participants Two hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling. Methods Retrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Primary outcome measure Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received. Results A median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69% (95% CI 67% to 70%) for preventative eye care, 60% (95% CI 56% to 58%) for glaucoma and 63% (95% CI 57% to 69%) for diabetic eye care. Conclusions Appropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.

AB - Objectives The CareTrack study found that a wide range of appropriateness of care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) was delivered across many health conditions in Australia. This study therefore aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using the CareTrack method (a retrospective onsite record review) to measure the appropriateness of eye care delivery. Design Cross-sectional feasibility study. Setting and participants Two hundred and thirteen patient records randomly selected from eight optometry and ophthalmology practices in Australia, selected through a combination of convenience and maximum variation sampling. Methods Retrospective record review designed to assess the alignment between eye care delivered and 93 clinical indicators (Delphi method involving 11 experts) extracted from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Primary outcome measure Number of eligible patient records, sampling rates and data collection time. This feasibility study also tested the ability of 93 clinical indicators to measure percentage appropriate eye care for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eye care. A secondary outcome was the percentage of practitioner-patient encounters at which appropriate eye care was received. Results A median of 20 records (range 9 to 63) per practice were reviewed. Data collection time ranged from 3 to 5.5 hours (median 3.5). The most effective sampling strategy involved random letter generation followed by sequential sampling. The appropriateness of care was 69% (95% CI 67% to 70%) for preventative eye care, 60% (95% CI 56% to 58%) for glaucoma and 63% (95% CI 57% to 69%) for diabetic eye care. Conclusions Appropriateness of eye care can be measured effectively using retrospective record review of eye care practices and consensus-based care indicators.

KW - Appropriateness of care

KW - Diabetic retinopathy

KW - Glaucoma

KW - Preventative eyecare

KW - Record audit

KW - Record review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062586257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024298

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024298

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - BMJ Open

T2 - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 3

M1 - 024298

ER -