SCREEN NOW: a new educational resource for diabetes and eye health

Diabetes retinopathy is a feared complication of diabetes. Anne Phillips describes a new educational resource to explain the need for retinal screening to people living with diabetes and health professionals

Barriers and facilitators to diabetic retinopathy screening within Australian primary care

Background Despite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia’s universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices. Methods A descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes. Results Of 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs’ access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography. Conclusion This study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs’ competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.

Incidental finding of lipaemia retinalis on diabetic retinal screening

Summary A 37-year-old female of South Asian origin was referred to our diabetes clinic for evaluation of an unusual finding during her retinal screening. Her retinal blood vessels appeared white in contrast to the normal pink-red colour. She had type I hyperlipidaemia, confirmed by genotype, and was recently diagnosed with diabetes, secondary to pancreatic insufficiency, for which she had suboptimal control and multiple hospitalisations with recurrent pancreatitis. On examination, she had multiple naevi on her skin; the rest of the examination was unremarkable. The patient did not report any visual disturbances and had intact visual acuity. Investigations showed raised total cholesterol (12.5 mmol/L) and triglycerides (57.7 mmol/L). Following evaluation, the patient was diagnosed with lipaemia retinalis, secondary to type I hyperlipidaemia. The patient was managed conservatively to reduce the cholesterol and triglyceride burdens. However, therapies with orlistat, statin, fibrates and cholestyramine failed. Only a prudent diet, omega-3 fish oil, medium-chain triglycerides oil and glycaemic control optimised with insulin showed some improvements in her lipid profile. Unfortunately, this led her to becoming fat-soluble vitamin deficient; hence, she was treated with appropriate supplementation. She was also recently started on treatment with volanesorsen. Following this, her lipid parameters improved and lipaemia retinalis resolved. Learning points Lipaemia retinalis is an uncommon incidental finding of type I hyperlipidaemia that may not affect vision. Management of associated dyslipidaemia is challenging with minimal response to conventional treatment. Increased awareness of lipaemia retinalis and specialist management is needed as part of regular patient monitoring and personalised management.

Management of Acute Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Related Complications During the First COVID-19 Wave

Background. Routine hospital eye services (HES) and diabetic retinal screening were paused during COVID lockdown in March 2020. Alternate pathways for managing acute ophthalmic pathology were devised in NHS Grampian: Emergency eye treatment centres (EETC) manned by community optometrists were set up to treat and triage referrals to HES. Methods. Retrospective study analysing patients referred to HES with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) related complications between March and August 2020. Results. 52 eyes of 46 patients with PDR related complications were identified. HES appointment had been delayed or cancelled in 43% due to COVID. Mean age was 54.5 years (± 15.1), 46% were female, 46% had type 1 diabetes; mean HbA1c was 78 mmol/l (± 18.7). Vision ranged from 6/6 to perception of light. 36 patients had unilateral vitreous haemorrhage (VH), 6 bilateral, 2 tractional retinal detachments and 3 had neovascular glaucoma. Following assessment, 23 eyes received anti-VEGF injection within 3 days, two had PRP on the same day, 16 were rebooked for urgent PRP, 13 referred for urgent surgical review and 17 advised observation. After a mean follow-up of 6 months, 12 eyes (23%) of 11 patients progressed to have vitrectomy. Conclusion. Despite lockdown, hospital appointment cancellations and recommended footfall reduction limiting capacity due to COVID19, patients reaching out with PDR complications were promptly referred to HES and appropriate treatments carried out with COVID precautions as recommended.

Oppurtunistic completion of the 9 diabetic care processes during inpatient admission to a mental health hospital: an audit of local practice

AimsDiabetes is more prevalent in people with mental illness than in the general population. Those with both mental illness and diabetes are more likely to have poor glycaemic control. Clients with mental illness and diabetes are less likely to receive the 9 NICE recommended annual diabetic care processes than the general population. In 2017, the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) and the Royal College of Psychiatrists released guidance recommending that inpatient psychiatric admissions should be used as an opportunity to complete diabetic care processes, and a named staff member should be responsible for this.We aimed to review local compliance with this JBDS-IP guidance, increase knowledge and improve local care for clients living with both mental illness and diabetes.MethodWe reviewed the notes of all current inpatients to general, forensic or learning disability wards at our centre and identified all patients with a known diagnosis of Diabetes. We identified which of the 9 care processes had been completed (or had the most recent result documented, or had a plan made for completion) during this admission. We identified if a named staff member was responsible for completing processes on each ward, and whether the care processes were documented in the patients’ notes.ResultWe identified 18 current diabetic inpatients at our centre (14% of inpatients). We found that none of these patients had a diabetic care processes review documented and none of these patients had had a foot check and urinary albumin performed during admission, or had the last community result identified and documented. We found that less than 15% of patients had a documented plan concerning the completion of retinal screening. One ward had a named staff member responsible for reviewing their diabetic patients’ screening. However, 6/9 care processes had been completed in the significant majority of patients (>75%).ConclusionOur centre is not compliant with the guideline audited. We have implemented a plan to increase awareness of care processes through posters, teaching (at junior and consultant level), creating documentation templates and ensuring wards nominate a staff member to review care processes. We have organised a re-audit. Organising foot examination, renal function testing and retinal screening during admission for clients who may have complicated social situations and may not be aware of (or be non adherent with) the long term management of their diabetes has the potential to significantly reduce morbidity in this client subgroup.