Background/aims: Co-managed care in cataract pathways allows ophthalmologists more time to treat other patients. However, little is known on how patients experience pathways that greatly reduce the amount of time spent with ophthalmologists.
Purpose: To determine experiences and preferences of cataract patients with co-managed postoperative care. Methods: In a nested-case control study, 194 patients who received their first-day review and final review by an ophthalmologist and 289 patients who received a telephone first-day review by a nurse and a final review by an optometrist were included. The Consumer Quality Index Cataract Questionnaire was used to measure patients' experiences with the quality of care after uncomplicated first-eye cataract surgery.
Results: Patients in the co-managed care pathway reported similarly good experiences with the quality of care as patients who received their reviews by an ophthalmologist. Patients who were reviewed by a nurse reported to prefer the same first-day review method significantly more often than those who were reviewed by an ophthalmologist. Most patients preferred the final review by an ophthalmologist.
Conclusion: Overall, patients with cataract highly rated co-managed care pathways without any postoperative contact with ophthalmologists. Nevertheless, patients still preferred ophthalmologists for their final review to optometrists. Any added patients' benefits should be clearly determined before substituting activities from ophthalmologists to other care professionals.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.169672, hdl.handle.net/1765/21709
British Journal of Ophthalmology: a peer review journal for health professionals and researchers in ophthalmology
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

van Vliet, E., Reus, N. J., Sermeus, W., & Vissers, J. M. H. (2010). Patients' experiences and preferences with co-managed care in a cataract pathway. British Journal of Ophthalmology: a peer review journal for health professionals and researchers in ophthalmology, 94(10), 1363–1368. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.169672