8 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in Scotland and England
OBJECTIVES: This audit assesses communication between community optometrists (COs) and hospital eye service (HES) in Scotland and England.
METHODS: Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from six practices in Scotland and England. If no reply was found, replies/records were copied from HES records. De-identified referrals, replies and records were audited against established standards, evaluating whether referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated.
RESULTS: From 905 de-identified referrals, RR ranged from 2.6 to 8.7%. From COs' perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 37 to 84% (Scotland) and 26 to 49% (England). A total of 88-96% of referrals (Scotland) and 63-76% (England) were seen in the HES. Adjusting for cases when it is reasonable to expect replies, RRR becomes 45-92% (Scotland) and 38-62% (England) with RRR significantly greater in Scotland (P = 0.015). Replies were copied to patients in 0-21% of cases. Referrals were to the appropriate service and judged necessary in ≥90% of cases in both jurisdictions. Accuracy of referral ranged from 89 to 97% (Scotland) and 81 to 98% (England). The reply addressed the reason for referral in 94-100% of cases (Scotland) and 93-97% (England) and was meaningful in 95-100% (Scotland) and 94-99% (England).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interdisciplinary joint statement on sharing patient information, this audit highlights variable standard of referrals and deficits in replies to the referring COs, with one exception in Scotland. Replies from HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians and minimising unnecessary HES appointments
From the outside in: narratives of creative arts practitioners working in the criminal justice system
This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Wiley-Blackwell in The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice on 31/12/2019, available online: https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12318
The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.The penal voluntary sector is highly variegated in its roles, practices and functions, though research to date has largely excluded the experiences of front-line practitioners. We argue that engaging with the narratives of practitioners can provide fuller appreciation of the potential of the sector’s work. Though life story and narrative have been recognised as important in offender desistance (Maruna, 2001), the narrative identities of creative arts practitioners, who are important ‘change agents’ (Albertson, 2015), are typically absent. This is despite evidence to suggest that a practitioner’s life history can be a significant and positive influence in the rehabilitation of offenders (Harris, 2017). Using narratological analysis (Bal, 2009), this study examined the narratives of 19 creative practitioners in prisons in England and Wales. Of particular interest were the formative experiences of arts practitioners in their journey to prison work. The findings suggest that arts practitioners identify with an ‘outsider’ status and may be motivated by an ethic of mutual aid. In the current climate of third sector involvement in the delivery of criminal justice interventions, such a capacity may be both a strength and weakness for arts organisations working in this field
Housing aspirations for a new generation: perspectives from white and south Asian British women
Recommended from our members
Referrals from community optometrists to the hospital eye service in England
Purpose
In the UK, most referrals to the hospital eye service (HES) originate from community optometrists (CO). This audit investigates the quality of referrals, replies, and communication between CO and the HES.
Methods
Optometric referrals and replies were extracted from three practices in England. If no reply letter was found, the records were searched at each local HES unit, and additional replies or records copied. De‐identified referrals, replies and records were audited by a panel against established standards to evaluate whether the referrals were necessary, accurate and directed to the appropriate professional. The referral rate (RR) and referral reply rate (RRR) were calculated.
Results
A total of 459 de‐identified referrals were extracted. The RR ranged from 3.6%–8.7%. The proportion of referred patients who were seen in the HES unit was 63%–76%. From the CO perspective, the proportion of referrals for which they received replies ranged from 26%–49%. Adjusting the number of referrals for cases when it would be reasonable to expect an HES reply, RRR becomes 38%–62%. Patients received a copy of the reply in 3%–21% of cases. Referrals were made to the appropriate service in over 95% of cases, were judged necessary in 93%–97% and were accurate in 81%–98% of cases. The referral reply addressed the reason for the referral in 93%–97% and was meaningful in 94%–99% of cases. The most common conditions referred were glaucoma, cataract, anterior segment lesions, and neurological/ocular motor anomalies. The CO/HES dyad (pairing) in the area with the lowest average household income had the highest RR.
Conclusions
In contrast with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists/College of Optometrists joint statement on sharing patient information, CO referrals often do not elicit a reply to the referring CO. Replies from the HES to COs are important for patient care, benefitting patients and clinicians, and minimising unnecessary HES appointments