posted 11/01/02
Family physicians can learn
to identify patients with obvious retinopathy with the right equipment, but they
still need to refer patients with diabetes to eye care specialists.
That, according to findings
presented last last week at the annual meeting of the American Association of
Family Physicians (AAFP).
James M. Gill, MD, MPH, from Christiana Care Health Services, in Wilmington,
Delaware, United States, and colleagues selected 11 family physicians from the
Delaware Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) to participate in a 4-hour training
workshop. The workshop was given by an education specialist and ophthalmologist
and designed to help the physicians screen for diabetic retinopathy by using a
new non-mydriatic ophthalmoscope that allows a view of the retina that is three
to five times wider than that of a standard direct ophthalmoscope.
Following the workshop, the physicians examined 29 patients with diabetes who
were selected to represent a spectrum of retinal abnormalities, from no disease
to severe disease. They assessed two retinal fields in each of the patients'
eyes as "normal", "abnormal" or "cannot evaluate", based on the standardized
criteria they learned in the workshop. The physicians' findings were compared to
the ophthalmologist's evaluation, using the same ophthalmoscope and criteria, as
well as the results of comprehensive indirect ophthalmoscopy and retinal
diagrams in the ophthalmologist's office.
Overall, the physicians rated 41 percent of retinal field as "normal", 14
percent as "abnormal" and 46 percent as "cannot evaluate". In contrast, the
ophthalmologist, using the same tool and criteria, rated 43 percent as "normal",
21 percent as "abnormal' and 36 percent as "cannot evaluate". With the indirect
criteria, the ophthalmologist rated 46 percent as "normal", 54 percent as
"abnormal" and none as "cannot evaluate".
Compared to the ophthalmologist using the same criteria, the physicians'
sensitivity with respect to detecting retinal abnormality was 36 percent, and
their specificity was 55 percent. When both the physicians' "abnormal" and
"cannot evaluate" scores were collapsed together to form a "refer" category, as
opposed to the normal or "do not refer" category, sensitivity increased to 70
percent. Compared to the indirect criteria, and again using the "refer" and "do
not refer" categories, physicians' sensitivities were 75 percent, and their
specificities were 59 percent.
According to Dr. Gill, physicians' accuracy rates "were not high enough to
bypass the current standard of sending all [diabetic] patients for an eye exam.
However, the methods [the physicians learned in the workshop] are much more
accurate than what we have today, and actually they're very efficient."
"Probably the key issue is that, in patients for whom retinopathy is identified
by their family physician, there's probably an increased likelihood they will go
to an eye specialist because you're telling them they have a problem," he
concluded.
Source: Diabetes In Control Dot Com.
Home - Table of Contents - Donate Now - About Diabetes - Warning Signs - Complications - Screening Test - Diabetes Terms - Site Search - Meet Mr. Diabetes® - Wake Up And Walk® Tour - Latest News - Headlines & News Stories - Health & Fitness - About Us - FAQ - Research Form - - Message Board - Privacy Policy - Legal Notices - How to Contact Us - Comments form - Suggestion Form - Our E-Mail Addresses - Our Address and Phone Numbers - Links - Contact Us