Yes / Background: There are a number of limitations to the present primary eye care system in the UK. Patients with minor eye conditions typically either have to present to their local hospital or GP, or face a charge when visiting eye care professionals (optometrists). Some areas of the UK have commissioned enhanced community services to alleviate this problem; however, many areas have not. The present study is a needs assessment of three areas (Leeds, Airedale and Bradford) without a Minor Eye Conditions Service (MECS), with the aim of determining whether such a service is clinically or economically viable. Method: A pro forma was developed for optometrists and practice staff to complete when a patient presented whose reason for attending was due to symptoms indicative of a problem that could not be optically corrected. This form captured the reason for visit, whether the patient was seen, the consultation funding, the outcome and where the patient would have presented to if the optometrists could not have seen them. Optometrists were invited to participate via Local Optical Committees. Results were submitted via a Google form or a Microsoft Excel document and were analysed in Microsoft Excel. Results: Seventy-five percent of patients were managed in optometric practice. Nine and 16% of patients required subsequent referral to their General Practitioner or hospital ophthalmology department, respectively. Should they not have been seen, 34% of patients would have presented to accident and emergency departments and 59% to their general practitioner. 53% of patients paid privately for the optometrist appointment, 28% of patients received a free examination either through use of General Ophthalmic Service sight tests (9%) or optometrist good will (19%) and 19% of patients did not receive a consultation and were redirected to other providers (e.g. pharmacy, accident and emergency or General Practitioner). 88% of patients were satisfied with the level of service. Cost-analyses revealed a theoretical cost saving of £3198 to the NHS across our sample for the study period, indicating cost effectiveness. Conclusions: This assessment demonstrates that a minor eye condition service in the local areas would be economically and clinically viable and well received by patients.

Previous research has reported that inequalities exist in uptake of NHS sight tests in relation to socio-economic status, and that community optometric services have potential to improve system efficiency. The current research found inequalities in sight test outcome related to socio-economic status and the type of practice that a patient visits (multiple, or independent). Patients attending multiples were more likely to receive a ‘new or changed prescription’ relative to ‘no prescription’ compared to patients that attended independent opticians (36-71% more likely). Those living in the least deprived areas were also less likely to receive a new prescription (1-12%) and those aged <16 years were less likely to be referred (9%). The study examining the need for a Minor Eye Condition Service in Leeds and Bradford found it would produce theoretical cost savings, whilst maintaining high patient satisfaction. Subsequently, a MECS was commissioned in Bradford. The study attempting to collect data from MECS across all areas of England found that data is not routinely collected, or shared. The limited data available typically showed that 73-83% of patients were retained in optometric practice with 12-18% receiving a hospital referral. A prospective evaluation of a COVID urgent eye care service found that teleconsultations frequently did not resolve patients’ eye problems (27%). These telephone consultations failed to detect some serious conditions such as scleritis, wet macular degeneration, retinal detachment. The results from the thesis support the view that the current method of delivering eye care in England is contrary to the public health interest.