No

Yes / Although urgent primary eye care schemes exist in some areas of England, their current safety is unknown. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to quantify the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES) across Luton, Bedford, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire and Harrogate. Consenting patients with acute onset eye problems who had accessed the service were contacted to ascertain what the optometrist's recommendation was, whether this worked, if they had to present elsewhere and how satisfied they were with the CUES. A total of 27% (170/629) and 6.3% (28/445) of patients managed virtually and in person, respectively, did not have their acute eye problem resolved. Regression analysis revealed that patients who attended a face-to-face consultation were 4.66 times more likely to be correctly managed [Exp (β) = 5.66], relative to those solely managed virtually. Optometrists' phone consultations failed to detect conditions such as stroke, intracranial hypertension, suspected space occupying lesions, orbital cellulitis, scleritis, corneal ulcer, wet macular degeneration, uveitis with macular oedema and retinal detachment. Of referrals to hospital ophthalmology departments, in total, 19% were false-positives. Patients, however, were typically very satisfied with the service. Uptake was associated with socioeconomic status. The present study found that a virtual assessment service providing optometrist tele-consultations was not effective at resolving patients' acute-onset eye problems. The range and number of pathologies missed by tele-consultations suggests that the service model in the present study was detrimental to patient safety. To improve this, optometrists should follow evidence based guidance when attempting to manage patients virtually, or in person. For example, patients presenting with acute-onset symptoms of flashing lights and/or floaters require an urgent dilated fundus examination. Robust data collection on service safety is required on an ongoing basis.