Yes / Purpose: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 managed solely 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 socio-economic status. Conclusion: The present study found that a virtual assessment service providing optometrist teleconsultations was not effective at resolving patient’s acute-onset eye problems. The range and number of pathologies missed by teleconsultations 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. / The full-text of this article will be released for public view at the end of the publisher embargo on 10 Nov 2022.

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.