Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model

Saumya M. Shah, Clara Choo, Jamie Odden, Bingying Zhao, Chengbo Fang, Muriel Schornack, Gina Stalboerger, Jeffrey R. Bennett, Cheryl Khanna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Glaucoma specialists and optometrists who work in a team model at a single institution utilize a common definition of glaucoma progression and treatment algorithm. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency of agreement in identifying glaucoma progression among glaucoma specialists and optometrists of 1 team. Methods: In total, 399 eyes of 200 patients age 18 or older with glaucoma were enrolled over 2 years. Clinical data, disc photographs, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and visual fields were independently reviewed by 2 masked optometrists and 2 masked fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists. Each eye was judged as progression or no progression of glaucomatous disease. The following were assessed: (1) agreement among optometrists; (2) agreement among glaucoma specialists; and (3) agreement among optometrists and glaucoma specialists. The frequency of use of testing modality to determine progression was also studied. κ statistics were used to evaluate agreements. Results: Optometrists agreed with each other for 74.2% of the eyes assessed (κ=0.42), whereas glaucoma specialists agreed with each other for 78.7% of eyes (κ=0.39). All 4 providers agreed with each other for 54.4% of the eyes evaluated (κ=0.37). Providers had the highest agreement when the progression decision was based on disc hemorrhage (92%) and the lowest agreement when based on OCT progression analysis (36%). Compared with optometrists, glaucoma specialists used OCT (P≤0.01) more frequently to determine disease progression. Conclusions: Fair to moderate agreement levels were found among providers in their assessment of glaucoma progression, suggesting that a team approach to glaucoma management may be effective. Further work is needed to investigate ways to optimize consistency within the glaucoma team.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)691-698
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Glaucoma
Volume27
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Glaucoma
Optical Coherence Tomography
Disease Progression
Optometrists
Visual Fields
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • glaucoma monitoring
  • glaucoma practice
  • Key Words: team care
  • shared-care model

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model. / Shah, Saumya M.; Choo, Clara; Odden, Jamie; Zhao, Bingying; Fang, Chengbo; Schornack, Muriel; Stalboerger, Gina; Bennett, Jeffrey R.; Khanna, Cheryl.

In: Journal of Glaucoma, Vol. 27, No. 8, 01.08.2018, p. 691-698.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shah, SM, Choo, C, Odden, J, Zhao, B, Fang, C, Schornack, M, Stalboerger, G, Bennett, JR & Khanna, C 2018, 'Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model', Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 691-698. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000994
Shah, Saumya M. ; Choo, Clara ; Odden, Jamie ; Zhao, Bingying ; Fang, Chengbo ; Schornack, Muriel ; Stalboerger, Gina ; Bennett, Jeffrey R. ; Khanna, Cheryl. / Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model. In: Journal of Glaucoma. 2018 ; Vol. 27, No. 8. pp. 691-698.
@article{41148b9de8e4404cb00fb769422d794f,
title = "Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model",
abstract = "Purpose: Glaucoma specialists and optometrists who work in a team model at a single institution utilize a common definition of glaucoma progression and treatment algorithm. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency of agreement in identifying glaucoma progression among glaucoma specialists and optometrists of 1 team. Methods: In total, 399 eyes of 200 patients age 18 or older with glaucoma were enrolled over 2 years. Clinical data, disc photographs, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and visual fields were independently reviewed by 2 masked optometrists and 2 masked fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists. Each eye was judged as progression or no progression of glaucomatous disease. The following were assessed: (1) agreement among optometrists; (2) agreement among glaucoma specialists; and (3) agreement among optometrists and glaucoma specialists. The frequency of use of testing modality to determine progression was also studied. κ statistics were used to evaluate agreements. Results: Optometrists agreed with each other for 74.2{\%} of the eyes assessed (κ=0.42), whereas glaucoma specialists agreed with each other for 78.7{\%} of eyes (κ=0.39). All 4 providers agreed with each other for 54.4{\%} of the eyes evaluated (κ=0.37). Providers had the highest agreement when the progression decision was based on disc hemorrhage (92{\%}) and the lowest agreement when based on OCT progression analysis (36{\%}). Compared with optometrists, glaucoma specialists used OCT (P≤0.01) more frequently to determine disease progression. Conclusions: Fair to moderate agreement levels were found among providers in their assessment of glaucoma progression, suggesting that a team approach to glaucoma management may be effective. Further work is needed to investigate ways to optimize consistency within the glaucoma team.",
keywords = "glaucoma monitoring, glaucoma practice, Key Words: team care, shared-care model",
author = "Shah, {Saumya M.} and Clara Choo and Jamie Odden and Bingying Zhao and Chengbo Fang and Muriel Schornack and Gina Stalboerger and Bennett, {Jeffrey R.} and Cheryl Khanna",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/IJG.0000000000000994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "691--698",
journal = "Journal of Glaucoma",
issn = "1057-0829",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Provider Agreement in the Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Within a Team Model

AU - Shah, Saumya M.

AU - Choo, Clara

AU - Odden, Jamie

AU - Zhao, Bingying

AU - Fang, Chengbo

AU - Schornack, Muriel

AU - Stalboerger, Gina

AU - Bennett, Jeffrey R.

AU - Khanna, Cheryl

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Purpose: Glaucoma specialists and optometrists who work in a team model at a single institution utilize a common definition of glaucoma progression and treatment algorithm. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency of agreement in identifying glaucoma progression among glaucoma specialists and optometrists of 1 team. Methods: In total, 399 eyes of 200 patients age 18 or older with glaucoma were enrolled over 2 years. Clinical data, disc photographs, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and visual fields were independently reviewed by 2 masked optometrists and 2 masked fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists. Each eye was judged as progression or no progression of glaucomatous disease. The following were assessed: (1) agreement among optometrists; (2) agreement among glaucoma specialists; and (3) agreement among optometrists and glaucoma specialists. The frequency of use of testing modality to determine progression was also studied. κ statistics were used to evaluate agreements. Results: Optometrists agreed with each other for 74.2% of the eyes assessed (κ=0.42), whereas glaucoma specialists agreed with each other for 78.7% of eyes (κ=0.39). All 4 providers agreed with each other for 54.4% of the eyes evaluated (κ=0.37). Providers had the highest agreement when the progression decision was based on disc hemorrhage (92%) and the lowest agreement when based on OCT progression analysis (36%). Compared with optometrists, glaucoma specialists used OCT (P≤0.01) more frequently to determine disease progression. Conclusions: Fair to moderate agreement levels were found among providers in their assessment of glaucoma progression, suggesting that a team approach to glaucoma management may be effective. Further work is needed to investigate ways to optimize consistency within the glaucoma team.

AB - Purpose: Glaucoma specialists and optometrists who work in a team model at a single institution utilize a common definition of glaucoma progression and treatment algorithm. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency of agreement in identifying glaucoma progression among glaucoma specialists and optometrists of 1 team. Methods: In total, 399 eyes of 200 patients age 18 or older with glaucoma were enrolled over 2 years. Clinical data, disc photographs, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and visual fields were independently reviewed by 2 masked optometrists and 2 masked fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists. Each eye was judged as progression or no progression of glaucomatous disease. The following were assessed: (1) agreement among optometrists; (2) agreement among glaucoma specialists; and (3) agreement among optometrists and glaucoma specialists. The frequency of use of testing modality to determine progression was also studied. κ statistics were used to evaluate agreements. Results: Optometrists agreed with each other for 74.2% of the eyes assessed (κ=0.42), whereas glaucoma specialists agreed with each other for 78.7% of eyes (κ=0.39). All 4 providers agreed with each other for 54.4% of the eyes evaluated (κ=0.37). Providers had the highest agreement when the progression decision was based on disc hemorrhage (92%) and the lowest agreement when based on OCT progression analysis (36%). Compared with optometrists, glaucoma specialists used OCT (P≤0.01) more frequently to determine disease progression. Conclusions: Fair to moderate agreement levels were found among providers in their assessment of glaucoma progression, suggesting that a team approach to glaucoma management may be effective. Further work is needed to investigate ways to optimize consistency within the glaucoma team.

KW - glaucoma monitoring

KW - glaucoma practice

KW - Key Words: team care

KW - shared-care model

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048254442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048254442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000994

DO - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000994

M3 - Article

C2 - 29870430

AN - SCOPUS:85048254442

VL - 27

SP - 691

EP - 698

JO - Journal of Glaucoma

JF - Journal of Glaucoma

SN - 1057-0829

IS - 8

ER -