Investigation of the causes of non‐tolerance to optometric prescriptions for spectacles

作者: Catherine E. Freeman , Bruce J. W. Evans

DOI: 10.1111/J.1475-1313.2009.00682.X

关键词: Data entry errorMedical prescriptionLunetteMedicineOptometrySpectacle prescription

摘要: Objectives:  To study non-tolerance to spectacle prescriptions in a busy community optometric practice, with several practitioners. Methods:  A was defined pragmatic way, as patient who had collected spectacles from the practice and subsequently returned because they were either having problems with, or unable wear, their new spectacles. Patients over 16 years of age, met above definition sequentially recruited 6 month period. experiencing adaptation first seen by dispensing optician any issues resolved. If felt be correct, if persisted, then re-examined an optometrist results analysed. Results:  Non-tolerance examinations accounted for 62 3091 eye during The average rate non-tolerance, averaged across practitioners, 1.8%, varying 1.3–3.3% individual practitioners. Gender not factor however age was, presbyopes accounting 88.1%. most common reasons were, order decreasing frequency: prescription related (61.0%), (22.0%), pathology (8.5%), data entry error (6.8%) binocular vision anomalies (1.7%). Of errors, gauging spherical element majority inaccuracies, followed near/intermediate addition. In every case, final within 1.00 D tolerated, prescription; 84.4% ±0.50 D. Conclusions:  Spectacle forms small, but important, form adverse reaction clinics. Most non-tolerances can resolved small changes, 0.50 D, prescription.

参考文章(25)
J. C. K. Mwanza, P. M. Kabasele, Reasons for return of patients for consultation after prescription for corrective glasses Bulletin de la Société belge d'ophtalmologie. ,vol. 270, pp. 79- 83 ,(1998)
T Grosvenor, D A Goss, Reliability of refraction--a literature review. Journal of the American Optometric Association. ,vol. 67, pp. 619- 630 ,(1996)
M Szymkiw, J V Lovasik, Effects of aniseikonia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal illuminance, and pupil size on stereopsis. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. ,vol. 26, pp. 741- 750 ,(1985)
George Smith, Refraction and visual acuity measurements: what are their measurement uncertainties? Clinical and Experimental Optometry. ,vol. 89, pp. 66- 72 ,(2006) , 10.1111/J.1444-0938.2006.00022.X
Robert G. Cumming, Rebecca Ivers, Lindy Clemson, John Cullen, Maggie F. Hayes, Michael Tanzer, Paul Mitchell, Improving vision to prevent falls in frail older people: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. ,vol. 55, pp. 175- 181 ,(2007) , 10.1111/J.1532-5415.2007.01046.X
C. F. Steele, G. Rubin, S. Fraser, Error classification in community optometric practice - a pilot project. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. ,vol. 26, pp. 106- 110 ,(2006) , 10.1111/J.1475-1313.2005.00360.X
M Comas, X Castells, E R Acosta, J Tuñí, Impact of differences between eyes on binocular measures of vision in patients with cataracts Eye. ,vol. 21, pp. 702- 707 ,(2007) , 10.1038/SJ.EYE.6702305
STEWART DUKE-ELDER, DAVID ABRAMS, System of Ophthalmology, Volume V. Ophthalmic Optics and Refraction Optometry and Vision Science. ,vol. 48, pp. 350- ,(1971) , 10.1097/00006324-197104000-00009
Patricia Hrynchak, Prescribing spectacles: reasons for failure of spectacle lens acceptance. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. ,vol. 26, pp. 111- 115 ,(2006) , 10.1111/J.1475-1313.2005.00351.X
Jaakko Leinonen, Eero Laakkonen, Leila Laatikainen, Repeatability (test-retest variability) of refractive error measurement in clinical settings Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. ,vol. 84, pp. 532- 536 ,(2006) , 10.1111/J.1600-0420.2006.00695.X