/ /

  • linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Patients’ health jeopardized by failed ophthalmology follow-up


    Looking at the reasons patients did not return for follow-up, the researchers attributed the problem to “incomplete administrative processes to discharge the patients” in 79,652 cases (54.8%).

    They found 18,098 (12.5%) resulted from patients not showing up for clinic appointments they had booked, and 47,574 (32.8%) resulted from appointments that were cancelled. They could not tell how many were cancelled by patients and how many by administrators, but data from the first 99,659 patient episodes found 5% of cancellations were due to the hospital and 9% due to the patients.

    The researchers took a closer look at the 16 cases of patients who came to serious harm as a result of failure to follow-up. Fourteen of these were patients with glaucoma, one with a central vein occlusion and secondary glaucoma following a dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Another had a benign pleomorphic adenoma of the orbit.

    Of the 14 glaucoma patients, 10 did not have follow-up appointments made after an outpatient visit. Another was seen in the accidents and emergency department, then referred to the glaucoma service, but no glaucoma appointment was made.

    Of the other 4 patients, 1 patient did not show up for an appointment, and no new appointment was made. Another patient had no follow-up appointment made after a laser trabeculoplasty. A third did not receive an appointment after being referred by a general practitioner. The fourth was seen after the referral, attended an outpatient appointment, then did not return after that.

    Evidence in the notes suggest that some of the glaucoma patients had particular obstacles to overcome. One had dementia, another had a poor memory due to a brain haemorrhage, and two had a record of poor compliance with therapy. The fourth had a record of poor attendance for diabetic retinal screening in addition to glaucoma appointments.

    All of these patients suffered significant visual field loss as a result of this failure to follow-up. In three quarters of these cases, clinicians had clearly planned follow-up appointments, but in most cases these were changed, most often by the hospital. Lost notes, failure to book a procedure, and transfers from one subspecialty to another were also factors in some cases.

    After reviewing literature from other specialties, Moorfields initiated new processes to minimize failures to follow-up.

    These procedures include new written policies and training for administrative support to emphasize there must be an outcome for each patient at the end of clinic.

    In addition, a log is kept of any patients for whom there are no outcomes, and senior clinicians now review the notes for patients who do not attend appointments, or whose appointments are cancelled.

    Moorfields has also begun text reminders for all patients 2 days before appointments.

    The hospital has taken steps to raise awareness in business, governance, and teaching meetings of the risks of failure to follow-up.

    “There is further work to be done to ensure that patients referred internally to another ophthalmic subspecialty service have the appropriate appointment made,” the authors concluded.

    New Call-to-action


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available


    View Results