RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of Clinical Threshold Policies for Cataract Surgery and the Regional Variation in Rates of Surgery
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.24.21254261
DO 10.1101/2021.03.24.21254261
A1 Lisle, J.
A1 Ansari, N.
A1 Jabir, M.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/14/2021.03.24.21254261.abstract
AB Background/Aims To characterise the national patterns in rates of cataract surgery across England, review clinical thresholds against NICE guidance, and determine how far variable access to cataract surgery is attributable to regional variation in policy stringency and social deprivation.Methods 127 Clinical Commissioning Groups (“CCGs”) provided cataract surgery data and threshold policies in response to a Freedom of Information request. Local cataract surgery rates were grouped by threshold stringency and analysed on an age group-corrected basis. ANOVA testing was used to assess effect of policy stringency on regional rates of cataract surgery.Results In England, rates of cataract surgery vary threefold across CCGs, from 1,980 to 6,427 per 100,000 population over 60, with a standard deviation (784.76) of 22% of the mean value, 3,598. Threshold policies vary across CCGs: 33 had no policy, 45 utilised policies accessible on the basis of Quality of Life (“QoL”) impact, and 39, against NICE guidance, required a Visual Acuity (“VA”) threshold be exceeded. Rates of surgery by CCG were negatively correlated with restrictiveness of policy (η2=0.18, p<0.01), and positively correlated with the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), (r2□=□0.11, p<0.01). Prior approval processes are not significantly associated with reduced rates of surgery.Conclusion Over two-thirds of CCGs continue to use threshold-based policies for access to cataract surgery, with one-third doing so solely on the basis of VA requirements, despite NICE guidance to the contrary. For NHS operations, variation in policy restrictiveness accounts for more of the variation in surgery rates than socioeconomic deprivation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received no funding and had no sponsors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:n/aAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesNo additional data available