Delay in diabetic retinopathy screening increases the rate of detection of referable diabetic retinopathy

Aims - To assess whether there is a relationship between delay in retinopathy screening after diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes and level of retinopathy detected. Methods - Patients were referred from 88 primary care practices to an English National Health Service diabetic eye screening programme. Data for screened patients were extracted from the primary care databases using semi-automated data collection algorithms supplemented by validation processes. The programme uses two-field mydriatic digital photographs graded by a quality assured team. Results - Data were available for 8183 screened patients with diabetes newly diagnosed in 2005, 2006 or 2007. Only 163 with Type 1 diabetes were identified and were insufficient for analysis. Data were available for 8020 with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. Of these, 3569 were screened within 6 months, 2361 between 6 and 11 months, 1058 between 12 and 17 months, 366 between 18 and 23 months, 428 between 24 and 35 months, and 238 at 3 years or more after diagnosis. There were 5416 (67.5%) graded with no retinopathy, 1629 (20.3%) with background retinopathy in one eye, 753 (9.4%) with background retinopathy in both eyes and 222 (2.8%) had referable diabetic retinopathy. There was a significant trend (P = 0.0004) relating time from diagnosis to screening detecting worsening retinopathy. Of those screened within 6 months of diagnosis, 2.3% had referable retinopathy and, 3 years or more after diagnosis, 4.2% had referable retinopathy. Conclusions - The rate of detection of referable diabetic retinopathy is elevated in those who were not screened promptly after diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes

Update on Screening for Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy

The aim of this article was to describe recent advances in the use of new technology in diabetic retinopathy screening by looking at studies that assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies. METHODS: The author conducts an ongoing search for articles relating to screening or management of diabetic retinopathy utilising Zetoc with keywords and contents page lists from relevant journals. RESULTS: The areas discussed in this article are reference standards, alternatives to digital photography, area of retina covered by the screening method, size of the device and hand-held cameras, mydriasis versus non-mydriasis or a combination, measurement of distance visual acuity, grading of images, use of automated grading analysis and cost-effectiveness of the new technologies. CONCLUSIONS: There have been many recent advances in technology that may be adopted in the future by screening programmes for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy but each device will need to demonstrate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before more widespread adoption

Improving the screening of risk factors in diabetic retinopathy

Introduction: In 2002, Diabetic Retinopathy was reported as the leading cause of blindness in the working age group. The introduction of systematic screening programs in the UK has reduced visual loss and blindness due to diabetic retinopathy, but it does still occur with catastrophic consequences for the individual. Areas covered: The author conducted an ongoing search for articles relating to diabetic retinopathy since 2000 utilizing Zetoc Alert with keywords and contents page lists from relevant journals. This review covers the risk factors for loss of vision due to diabetic retinopathy and discusses ways in which the awareness of these risk factors can be used to further reduce visual loss. Some risk factors such as glycemic and B/P control are well known from landmark trials. This review has included these factors but concentrated more on the evidence behind those risk factors that are not so clearly defined or so well known. Expert opinion: The major risk factors are well known, but one continues to find that people with diabetes lose vision in situations in which a better awareness of the risks by both the individual with diabetes and the health workers involved may have prevented the visual loss

Screening Intervals for Diabetic Retinopathy and Implications for Care

Purpose of Review The purpose of this study is to review the evidence that lower risk groups who could safely be screened less frequently for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (DR) than annually. Recent Findings Data have demonstrated that people with no DR in either eye are at a low risk of progression to sight-threatening DR over a 2-year period (event rate 4.8 per 1000 person years), irrespective of whether the screening method is one-field non-mydriatic or two-field mydriatic digital photography. Low risk has been defined as no retinopathy on two consecutive screening episodes or no retinopathy on one screening episode combined with risk factor data. Summary The risk of an extension to 2 years is less than 5 per 1000 person years in a population with a national screening programme, and the general standard of diabetes care is relatively good, whether low risk is defined as no retinopathy on two consecutive screening episodes or no retinopathy on one screening episode combined with other risk factor data. The definition used in different populations is likely to depend on the availability of data

The English National Screening Programme for diabetic retinopathy 2003–2016

The aim of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme is to reduce the risk of sight loss amongst people with diabetes by the prompt identification and effective treatment if necessary of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy, at the appropriate stage during the disease process. In order to achieve the delivery of evidence-based, population-based screening programmes, it was recognised that certain key components were required. It is necessary to identify the eligible population in order to deliver the programme to the maximum number of people with diabetes. The programme is delivered and supported by suitably trained, competent, and qualified, clinical and non-clinical staff who participate in recognised ongoing Continuous Professional Development and Quality Assurance schemes. There is an appropriate referral route for those with screen-positive disease for ophthalmology treatment and for assessment of the retinal status in those with poor-quality images. Appropriate assessment of control of their diabetes is also important in those who are screen positive. Audit and internal and external quality assurance schemes are embedded in the service. In England, two-field mydriatic digital photographic screening is offered annually to all people with diabetes aged 12 years and over. The programme commenced in 2003 and reached population coverage across the whole of England by 2008. Increasing uptake has been achieved and the current annual uptake of the programme in 2015–16 is 82.8% when 2.59 million people with diabetes were offered screening and 2.14 million were screened. The benefit of the programme is that, in England, diabetic retinopathy/maculopathy is no longer the leading cause of certifiable blindness in the working age group

The Case for Extended Screening Intervals for People With Diabetes and No or Minimal Retinopathy at Baseline

Invited commentary

Risk Factors Associated with Progression to Referable Retinopathy: A Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Cohort Study in the Republic of Ireland

AIM: To determine factors associated with progression to referable diabetic retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes in Ireland. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a dynamic cohort of 2770 people with type 2 diabetes, recruited between April 2005 and July 2013. Systemic factors (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c, lipid levels, BMI) and baseline diabetic retinopathy grading results were evaluated at 4-monthly and yearly intervals, respectively. Associations between risk factors (most recently recorded value, and rate of change in value between pairs of consecutive systemic evaluations) and development of referable diabetic retinopathy were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There was a fourfold increased risk of progression to referral when retinopathy was present at baseline vs no retinopathy at baseline (hazard ratio 4.02, 95% CI 2.80-5.78; P<0.001). Higher current values of HbA1c (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.34; P<0.001), systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.15-1.45; P<0.001) and triglycerides (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.18; P=0.004) were associated with increased risk of referral. Higher current BMI (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95; P=0.007) and diastolic blood pressure (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97; P=0.006) were associated with reduced risk of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of retinopathy at baseline was strongly associated with increased risk of referral. Modest associations between systemic factors and risk of progression to referable retinopathy were detected

Physician Opinions about EHR Use by EHR Experience and by Whether the Practice had optimized its EHR Use

Optimization and experience with using EHRs may improve physician experiences. Physician opinions about EHR-related impacts, and the extent to which these impacts differ by self-reported optimized EHR use and length of experience are examined through nationally representative physician data of EHR users from the National Electronic Health Records Survey extended survey (n=1,471). Logistic regression models first estimated how physicians' length of times using an EHR were associated with each EHR-related impact. Additionally, a similar set of models estimated the association of self-reported optimized EHR use with each EHR impact. At least 70% of physicians using EHRs continue to attribute their administrative burdens to their EHR use. Physicians with 4 or more years of EHR experience accounted for 58% of those using EHRs. About 71% of EHR users self-reported using an optimized EHR. Physicians with more EHR experience and those in practices that optimized EHR use had positive opinions about the impacts of using EHRs, compared to their counterparts. These findings suggest that longer experience with EHRs improves perceptions about EHR use; and that perceived EHR use optimization is crucial to identifying EHR-related benefits. Finding ways to reduce EHR-related administrative burden has yet to be addressed

Factors determining uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening in Oxfordshire

AIMS: To investigate variables at the demographic and primary care practice levels that influence the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. METHODS: Data were extracted from the management software of one screening programme for 21 797 people registered with 79 general practices. Uptake was examined by gender, age group, modality of screening (mobile unit at general practice versus high-street optometrist), and by general practice. A telephone survey of high-street optometrists provided information on the availability of screening appointments. RESULTS: Uptake was 82.4% during the study period, and was higher for men (83.2%) than for women (81.5%) (P = 0.001). Uptake varied by age group (P < 0.001), being lowest in those aged 12-39 years (67%). Uptake was higher for people invited to a general practice for screening by a mobile unit (83.5%) than for those invited for screening by a high-street optometrist (82%) (P = 0.006). After adjusting for these factors and for socio-economic deprivation score at the location of the general practice, heterogeneity in uptake rate was still observed between some practices. Our survey of optometrists indicated wide variation in the availability of time slots for screening during the week and of screening appointment provision. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic retinopathy screening services do not achieve high uptake among the youngest or oldest age groups. Practices in the least deprived areas had the highest uptake. Variation in uptake between general practices after adjustment for individual-level variables and deprivation suggests that practice-level factors may have an important role in determining rates of screening attendance