Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology · 1995
Brisbane GPs' perceptions of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jackson C, Hirst L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is one of the three leading causes of blindness in Australia, often causing considerable visual field loss before the patient becomes symptomatic. Recent years have seen a quickening of public health interest in primary open-angle glaucoma. Our study evaluates the attitudes and skills of Brisbane GPs with regard to screening for POAG.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate general practitioners' current use of possible screening modalities for POAG. To evaluate general practitioners' attitudes to screening for POAG. To evaluate general practitioner's levels of satisfaction with their knowledge and skills in the diagnosis of common ophthalmological conditions.
METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to 130 randomly selected GPs in the Brisbane metropolitan area. Response rate was 94%.
RESULTS: Tonometry and funduscopy were infrequently used in Brisbane general practice. Only 15% of the sample were satisfied with their current knowledge and skills concerning the detection of POAG. 88% felt that patients > 50 years should be screened for POAG and nominated a variety of sources -75% advocating ophthalmology screeners, 65% GP screeners, and 41% optometrist screeners. Ninety-nine per cent believed ophthalmologists should be treating glaucoma patients, and 57% believed GPs should have a role in management. Only 1% supported a therapeutic role for optometrists. Major perceived barriers to glaucoma screening in the elderly were the inaccuracy of current general practice screening tools (65%) and paucity of information concerning the desirability of screening (32%).
CONCLUSION: Brisbane general practitioners believe patients > 50 years old should be screened for POAG. They advocated a role for screening by ophthalmologists, GPs and optometrists. Major perceived barriers to current screening in general practice are the inaccuracy of current general practice tools (65%) and paucity of information on the subject (32%). The majority (85%) requested further information and provision of skills in this area.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate general practitioners' current use of possible screening modalities for POAG. To evaluate general practitioners' attitudes to screening for POAG. To evaluate general practitioner's levels of satisfaction with their knowledge and skills in the diagnosis of common ophthalmological conditions.
METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to 130 randomly selected GPs in the Brisbane metropolitan area. Response rate was 94%.
RESULTS: Tonometry and funduscopy were infrequently used in Brisbane general practice. Only 15% of the sample were satisfied with their current knowledge and skills concerning the detection of POAG. 88% felt that patients > 50 years should be screened for POAG and nominated a variety of sources -75% advocating ophthalmology screeners, 65% GP screeners, and 41% optometrist screeners. Ninety-nine per cent believed ophthalmologists should be treating glaucoma patients, and 57% believed GPs should have a role in management. Only 1% supported a therapeutic role for optometrists. Major perceived barriers to glaucoma screening in the elderly were the inaccuracy of current general practice screening tools (65%) and paucity of information concerning the desirability of screening (32%).
CONCLUSION: Brisbane general practitioners believe patients > 50 years old should be screened for POAG. They advocated a role for screening by ophthalmologists, GPs and optometrists. Major perceived barriers to current screening in general practice are the inaccuracy of current general practice tools (65%) and paucity of information on the subject (32%). The majority (85%) requested further information and provision of skills in this area.