ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
Australian general practice trainees’
exposure to ophthalmic problems and
implications for training: a cross-sectional
analysis
Simon Morgan MPH&TM, FRACGP;1 Amanda Tapley MMed.Stats;2 Kim M Henderson Grad. Dip. Health Soc.
Sci.;2 Neil A Spike FRACGP;3 Lawrie A McArthur FRACGP;4 Rebecca Stewart MClin.Ed., FRACGP;5
Andrew R Davey MClinEpid, FRACGP;6 Anthony Dunlop FRANZCO;7 Mieke L van Driel PhD, FRACGP;8
Parker J Magin PhD, FRACGP2,6
1
Elermore Vale General
Practice, Newcastle, New
South Wales, Australia
ABSTRACT
GP Synergy, Mayfield,
New South Wales, Australia
2
INTRODUCTION: Eye conditions are common presentations in Australian general practice, with
the potential for serious sequelae. Pre-vocational ophthalmology training for General Practitioner (GP) trainees is limited.
3
AIM: To describe the rate, nature and associations of ophthalmic problems managed by Australian GP trainees, and derive implications for education and training.
4
METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis from an ongoing cohort study of GP trainees’ clinical consultations. Trainees recorded demographic, clinical and educational details of consecutive
patient consultations. Descriptive analyses report trainee, patient and practice demographics. Proportions of all problems managed in these consultations that were ophthalmologyrelated were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations were tested using
simple logistic regression within the generalised estimating equations (GEE) framework.
Eastern Victoria General
Practice Training,
Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia
University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia
5
Tropical Medicine Training,
Townsville, Queensland,
Australia
6
University of Newcastle,
Discipline of General
Practice, Callaghan, New
South Wales, Australia
7
RESULTS: In total, 884 trainees returned data on 184,476 individual problems or diagnoses
from 118,541 encounters. There were 2649 ophthalmology-related problems, equating to
1.4% (95% CI: 1.38–1.49) of all problems managed. The most common eye presentations
were conjunctivitis (32.5% of total problems), eyelid problems (14.9%), foreign body (5.3%)
and dry eye (4.7%). Statistically significant associations were male trainee; male patient and
patient aged 14 years or under; the problem being new and the patient being new to both
trainee and practice; urban and of higher socioeconomic status practice location; the practice
nurse not being involved; planned follow up not arranged; referral made; in-consultation information sought; and learning goals generated.
DISCUSSION: Trainees have comparable ophthalmology exposure to established GPs. However, associations with referral and information-seeking suggest GP trainees find ophthalmic
problems challenging, reinforcing the critical importance of appropriate training.
KEYWORDS: General practice; ophthalmology; eye disease; education; medical; graduate
Introduction
Eye conditions are common in Australian
general practice, seen at a rate of 2.2 per 100
encounters and comprising 1.4% of all problems
managed.1 They range in nature from minor
problems to vision-threatening emergencies. Eye
problems are the fifth most common reason for
medical specialist referral in Australia, making
up 7.3% of such referrals.1
CSIRO Publishing
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2016
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Care Foresight P/L,
Newcastle, New South
Wales, Australia
8
University of Queensland,
Academic Discipline of
General Practice, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia
J PRIM HEALTH CARE
2016;8(4):295–302.
doi:10.1071/HC16024
Published online 21 December 2016
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Simon Morgan
Elermore Vale General
Practice, Elermore Vale, New
South Wales 2287, Australia.
lochswilly@gmail.com
295
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
this exposure, in order to better understand the
implications for education and training.
WHAT GAP THIS FILLS
What is already known: Eye conditions are common general practice presentations in Australia, and range in nature from minor
problems to vision-threatening emergencies. Ophthalmology is a
challenging area of clinical general practice and inadequacies of
ophthalmology training for medical students and junior doctors
have previously been described.
What this study adds: It has been demonstrated that GP trainees
have comparable ophthalmology exposure to established GPs,
and study findings suggest that trainees find ophthalmologyrelated problems challenging. This reinforces the importance of
specific training in ophthalmology for pre-vocational doctors and
GP trainees.
Ophthalmology is a challenging area of clinical
general practice, and general practitioners (GPs)
need up-to-date knowledge and skills. Inadequacies of ophthalmology training for medical
students and junior doctors have been identified
in Australia and internationally.2–4 Unlike many
other medical specialties, junior doctor hospital
posts in ophthalmology are uncommon, so general practice trainees often have limited experience of, and training in, ophthalmology before
commencing community-based training.
The Australian General Practice Training
(AGPT) programme involves a minimum of
three 6-month terms of experiential learning
in general practice. Registrars (trainees) can
seek advice from GP supervisors (trainers) in
‘apprenticeship-like’ relationships, but otherwise
they see unreferred patients and practice
independently.
For ophthalmology, as with other clinical areas,
consulting with patients provides GP trainees
with opportunities to apply knowledge and skills
acquired in structured educational sessions and
independent study. Without understanding the
clinical exposure of GP trainees to ophthalmic
problems, we cannot structure best practice
education and training. The scope of ophthalmic
problems managed by GP trainees has not previously been described in the literature.
We aimed to explore the rate and nature of GP
trainee exposure to ophthalmic problems, as well
as the clinical and educational associations of
296
Methods
This was a cross-sectional analysis of GP trainee
consultations as part of the Registrar Clinical
Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study. The
study methodology has been described in detail
elsewhere.5 Briefly, ReCEnT is an ongoing cohort
study of the in-practice clinical experiences of GP
trainees. It is undertaken in five of Australia’s 17
general practice regional training providers and
encompasses urban, rural and remote practices
in five of Australia’s six states.
Participating trainee characteristics and characteristics of their practice are recorded. In each of
their 6-month training terms in general practice,
trainees record the details of 60 consecutive
patient encounters (consultations), representing approximately 1 week of consultations. Data
collection is conducted around the mid-point of
each training term and employs a standardised
paper-based encounter form for each consultation. As data collection is designed to reflect a
‘normal’ week of general practice, consultations
in a specialised clinic, for example, vaccination
clinic or cervical smear clinic, are excluded. Only
office-based consultations (not home visits or
nursing home visits) are recorded.
Written informed consent is obtained for trainees’ de-identified data to be used for research
purposes. Ethics approval for this study was
obtained from the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of Newcastle, NSW,
Australia (approval number: H-2009–0323).
Statistical analysis
Analysis was performed on 10 rounds of data
from 2010 to 2014. Individual regional training
providers contributed 2–10 rounds of data, depending on their date of study commencement.
Descriptive analyses were used to report trainee,
patient and practice demographics.
Proportions of ophthalmic problems were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
Ophthalmic problems were compared with all
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
other problems. The most common eye conditions seen, procedures performed, and referrals
made by trainees were also assessed with descriptive statistics using a categorisation constructed
by the research team.
Associations of trainee, patient and practice factors with a problem being ophthalmic were tested
using simple logistic regression within the generalised estimating equations (GEE) framework to
account for the repeated-measures on trainees.
All analyses were conducted at the level of
individual problem rather than consultation
level. Analyses were programmed using STATA
13.1 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).
P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.
for consultations). Practice postcode was used
to define the Australian Standard Geographical
Classification-Remoteness Area classification (the
degree of rurality) of the practice location,7 and
to define the practice location’s Socio-Economic
Indexes for Areas (socioeconomic status).8
Consultation factors included practice nurse
involvement, referrals made and medications
prescribed.
Educational factors included obtaining inconsultation information or advice, and
generation of learning goals by the trainee for
subsequent attention.
Results
Outcome variable
Participants
The primary outcome variable in the regression
analysis was whether an ophthalmic problem was
managed by the trainee. In ReCEnT, a problem is
defined as ‘the single most likely provisional diagnosis’. Trainees are asked to record at least one
and up to four problems per patient encounter.
Only problems actually dealt with at the encounter are recorded. Problems are coded according
to the International Classification of Primary
Care, second edition classification system (ICPC2 plus).6 For the analysis of ophthalmic problems,
all ICPC-2 codes coded ‘eye’ (F) were included.
A total of 884 trainees contributed data to the
analysis. The response rate was 95.3%. Overall,
66.3% (95% CI: 63.1–69.3) of trainees were female, and their mean age was 32.4 years (standard deviation (s.d.): 6.3). Trainees who completed
their primary medical degree in Australia comprised 78.4% (95% CI: 75.5–81.0) of trainees, and
78.5% (95% CI: 76.7–80.3) of all trainees worked
2.5 days per week or more. Table 1 displays the
characteristics of participating trainees, traineeterms and practices.
Ophthalmic problems
Independent variables
Independent variables related to trainee, patient,
practice, consultation and educational factors.
Trainee factors were age, sex, training term, place
of medical qualification (Australia or international) and full- or part-time work status.
Patient factors were age, sex, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, non-English speaking
background, new patient to the practice, and new
patient to the trainee.
Practice factors were rurality, practice size
(number of full-time equivalent GPs), socioeconomic status, and if the practice routinely
bulk-bills (ie there is no financial cost to patients
Overall, trainees returned data on 184,476
individual problems from 118,541 encounters.
There were 2649 ophthalmic problems managed,
accounting for 1.4% (95% CI: 1.38–1.49) of all
problems managed. This equates to a rate of 2.2
(95% CI: 2.15–2.32) ophthalmic problems per 100
encounters.
Table 2 shows that the most common eye presentations were conjunctivitis (32.5% (95% CI: 30.7–34.3)
of total ophthalmic problems), eyelid problems
(14.9% (95% CI:13.5–16.3)), foreign body (5.3%
(95% CI:4.5–6.2)) and dry eye (4.7% (95% CI: 3.9–
5.6)). A procedure was performed in 3.7% (95% CI:
3.0–4.4) of ophthalmic problems; the most common procedure was removal of a corneal foreign
body (32.7% (95% CI: 24.0–42.7) of procedures).
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
297
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
Table 1. Participating trainee, trainee-term and practice characteristics
Variable
Class
n (%) (95% CI) or mean ± s.d.
Trainee variables (n = 884)
Trainee sex
Female
586 (66.3) (63.1–69.3)
Qualified as a doctor
in Australia
Yes
685 (78.4) (75.5–81.0)
Trainee age (years)
Mean ± s.d.
32.4 ± 6.3
Trainee-term* and practice-term variables (n = 1996)
Trainee training term
Term 1
795 (39.8) (37.7–42.0)
Term 2
713 (35.7) (33.6–37.9)
Term 3
488 (24.5) (22.6–26.4)
Trainee worked at the
practice previously
Yes
538 (27.3) (25.4–29.3)
Trainee works full time
Yes
1533 (78.5) (76.7–80.3)
Practice routinely bulk
bills†
Yes
348 (17.6) (15.9–19.3)
Number of GPs
working at the
practice
1–5
6+
658 (33.8) (31.7–35.9)
1289 (66.2) (64.1–68.3)
Rurality of practice
Major City
Inner Regional
Outer Regional /
Remote / Very
Remote
1157 (58.0) (55.8–60.1)
545 (27.3) (25.4–29.3)
294 (14.7) (13.2–16.4)
SEIFA, ‡ Index (decile)
of practice
Mean ± s.d.
5.5 ± 2.9
CI, confidence interval; s.d., standard deviation.
* ‘Trainee-term’ means the number of individual terms undertaken by all trainees.
†
‘Bulk bills’ means no financial cost to the patient.
‡
Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Relative Index of Disadvantage.
Table 3 presents the characteristics of trainees,
patients, and practices for ophthalmic problems
in comparison to all other problems. Table 4
presents the characteristics of consultations
involving ophthalmic problems in comparison to
all other problems.
Male trainees were significantly more likely to
manage ophthalmic problems. Male patients and
patients aged ≤ 14 years were significantly more
likely to have eye problems managed. Patients
with ophthalmic problems were significantly
more likely to be new to both trainee and practice, compared to patients with non-ophthalmic
problems. The problem itself was also more likely
to be new.
Ophthalmic problems were significantly more
likely to be managed in urban practices and in
practices located in areas of higher socioeconomic status. Practice nurses were significantly
less frequently involved in the management of
ophthalmic problems than other problems.
Ophthalmic problems were significantly less
likely to lead to planned follow up, but led to
a significantly greater rate (2.7-fold, P < 0.001)
of referral to all agencies compared to nonophthalmic problems (referral rate 27.1% (95%
CI: 25.4–28.8)). Most of these referrals were to
Table 2. Most commonly encountered ophthalmic problems and problems referred to ophthalmologists
Ophthalmic problem
Proportion of all ophthalmic
problems (n (%) (95% CI))
Referral to ophthalmologist
Proportion of all referrals to
ophthalmologist (%) (95% CI)
Proportion of problem
referred (%) (95% CI)
Conjunctivitis
861 (32.5) (30.7–34.3)
3.9 (2.4–6.1)
2.2 (1.3–3.4)
Eyelid problems (eg stye,
chalazion)
394 (14.9) (13.5–16.3)
9.3 (6.9–12.2)
11.4 (8.5–15.0)
Foreign body
140 (5.3) (4.5–6.2)
3.5 (2.1–5.6)
12.1 (7.2–18.7)
Dry eye
124 (4.7) (3.9–5.6)
2.9 (1.6–4.8)
11.2 (6.3–18.2)
Visual disturbance
121 (4.6) (3.8–5.4)
7.9 (5.6–10.6)
31.4 (23.3–40.5)
Corneal problem (eg ulcer)
105 (4.0) (3.3–4.8)
3.7 (2.2–5.8)
17.1 (10.5–25.7)
Glaucoma
81 (3.1) (2.4–3.8)
8.1 (5.6–10.9)
48.1 (36.9–59.5)
Cataract
79 (3.0) (2.4–3.7)
11.1 (8.5–14.3)
69.6 (58.2–79.5)
Subconjunctival
haemorrhage
71 (2.7) (2.1–3.4)
0.2 (0.1–1.1)
1.4 (0.1–7.6)
Blocked tear duct
46 (1.7) (1.3–2.3)
1.4 (0.6–3.0)
15.2 (6.3–28.9)
CI, confidence interval.
298
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
ophthalmologists (70.0% (95% CI: 66.5–73.3))
or optometrists (19.5% (95% CI: 16.7–22.6)),
with 5.9% (95% CI: 4.4–7.9) referred directly to
hospital. The most common problems referred
to ophthalmologists were cataracts (11.1% of
all ophthalmologist referrals), eyelid problems
(9.3%) and glaucoma (8.1%). As a proportion of
ophthalmology problems managed, 69.6% of
cataracts and 48.1% of glaucoma problems were
referred at the index consultation. Referrals to
ophthalmologists are presented in Table 2. Of all
hospital referrals, 39.5% were for a foreign body.
ophthalmic problems. This was significantly
more common (1.9-fold, P < 0.001) than for nonophthalmic problems (14.7% (95% CI: 14.5–14.9)).
For problems where in-consultation information
was sought by trainees, 54.0% (95% CI: 50.2–57.9)
of advice sources were trainers (or other doctors
in the practice); 8.7% (95% CI: 6.8–11.2) were
specialists, 33.6% (95% CI: 30.1–37.4) were
electronic resources and 7.3% (95% CI: 5.5–9.6)
were hard-copy resources. The most common
resources accessed are listed in Table 5 (more
than one source may be accessed per problem).
Trainees sought in-consultation information
or advice for 24.2% (95% CI: 22.6–25.9) of
Trainees generated learning goals in 20.6%
(95% CI: 19.1–22.2) of ophthalmic problems,
Table 3. Registrar, patient and practice characteristics associated with exposure to ophthalmic problems
Variable
Class
No
Yes
(n = 181,827) (n (%))
(n = 2649) (n (%))
Cluster adjustment OR
(P-value)
Trainee sex
Female
120,380 (66.2)
1610 (60.8)
0.79 (< 0.001)
Trainee FT or PT
Full Time
138,944 (78.1)
2073 (79.6)
1.09 (0.120)
Training term/post
Term 1
74,151 (40.8)
1018 (38.4)
referent
Term 2
63,904 (35.2)
1004 (37.9)
1.15 (0.004)
Term 3
43,772 (24.1)
627 (23.7)
1.05 (0.398)
Qualified as doctor in
Australia
Yes
141,188 (78.5)
2058 (78.6)
1.00 (0.949)
Trainee age
mean (s.d.)
32.7 (6.4)
32.6 (6.4)
1.00 (0.685)
Rurality
Major City
SEIFA Index
105,273 (57.9)
1642 (62.0)
referent
Inner Regional
49,514 (27.2)
655 (24.7)
0.85 (0.002)
Outer Regional / Remote /
Very Remote
27,040 (14.9)
352 (13.3)
0.84 (0.011)
5.4 (2.9)
5.7 (2.9)
1.03 (< 0.001)
mean (s.d.)
Bulk billing
Yes
31,730 (17.6)
467 (17.7)
1.00 (0.945)
Patient gender
Female
111,319 (62.9)
1416 (55.1)
0.73 (< 0.001)
Patient age group
(years)
0–14
24,707 (13.8)
626 (24.1)
referent
15–34
46,272 (25.8)
474 (18.2)
0.41 (< 0.001)
Patient status
35–64
73,159 (40.9)
915 (35.2)
0.50 (< 0.001)
65+
34,919 (19.5)
587 (22.6)
0.67 (< 0.001)
Returning patient
78,059 (44.1)
854 (33.3)
referent
New to trainee
87,279 (49.3)
1516 (59.0)
1.58 (< 0.001)
New to practice
11,807 (6.7)
198 (7.7)
1.52 (< 0.001)
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander
Yes
2353 (1.4)
38 (1.5)
1.14 (0.434)
Non-English speaking
background
Yes
12,178 (7.0)
190 (7.6)
1.10 (0.224)
OR, Odds ratio; FT, full time; PT, part time; s.d., standard deviation; SEIFA, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas.
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
299
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
significantly more frequently (1.6-fold) than
for non-ophthalmic problems (13.8% (95% CI:
13.6–13.9)).
Discussion
This is the first published study of the prevalence,
nature and associations of ophthalmic problems
managed by GP trainees. We found that eye conditions were commonly seen by trainees overall
and most eye problems managed were minor. We
identified several significant associations with
ophthalmic diagnoses.
Comparison with previous studies
The prevalence of ophthalmic problems in GP
trainees’ practices was comparable with that of
established Australian GPs (1.4% of problems and
2.2 per 100 encounters).1 This compares to a rate
Table 4. Consultation variables associated with exposure to ophthalmic problems
Variable
New problem
Class
Yes
No
Yes
(n = 181,827)
(n (%))
(n = 2649)
(n (%))
Cluster
adjustment
OR (P-value)
91,450 (54.8)
1745 (70.9)
2.00 (< 0.001)
Follow up
Yes
81,169 (44.6)
870 (32.8)
0.60 (< 0.001)
Any source
Yes
26,737 (14.7)
642 (24.2)
1.88 (< 0.001)
Learning
goals
Yes
24,012 (13.8)
525 (20.6)
1.65 (< 0.001)
Referral
Yes
21,719 (11.9)
717 (27.1)
2.74 (< 0.001)
Practice nurse
Yes
8810 (5.0)
53 (2.0)
0.40 (< 0.001)
OR, Odds ratio.
Table 5. Source of information used by general practitioner (GP) trainees for
ophthalmic problems when any source was accessed (n = 642)
Type of resource
Proportion of all sources accessed
(%) (95% CI)
GP trainer (or other doctor in the
practice)
54.4 (50.2–57.9)
Electronic resource
33.6 (30.1–37.4)
Books (hard-copy resources)
7.3 (5.5–9.6)
Other health professional
2.0 (1.2–3.5)
Other resource
2.8 (1.8–4.4)
Specialist
8.7 (6.8–11.2)
CI, confidence interval.
300
of 1.5 per 100 encounters in British general practice.9 A recent Dutch study found that the rate of
managing ophthalmic problems was higher for
trainees than for their GP trainers.10
Simple eye problems (conjunctivitis and eyelid
problems) were the commonest presentations
to GP trainees, comprising nearly half of all eye
problems managed. The nature of eye problem
presentations to trainees is similar to eye presentations to GPs in the UK.9 However, we could
find no comparable data on the nature of the eye
problems managed or rate of eye-related procedures by Australian GPs.
Patients with ophthalmic problems were most
likely to be young (aged 0–14 years) and male.
The younger age is consistent with the epidemiology of the eye diseases commonly seen by
the GP trainees (most commonly conjunctivitis
and eyelid problems). A male predominance
of eye-related problems has been previously
described.11
Ophthalmic problems were more likely than
other problems to be new to trainees, and eye
patients new to both trainee and practice. These
findings are consistent with previous studies,
which found that trainees see more new patients,
new problems, acute minor problems and fewer
older patients with chronic diseases.12,13 This
is likely to reflect patient demographic differences (younger patients) and patient allocation
practices.
GP trainees referred one-fifth (20.0%) of ophthalmic problems to ophthalmologists. This is
considerably lower than established Australian
GPs, who refer 31.1% of patients with ophthalmic
problems.1 This may reflect a different case-mix
of eye conditions between the groups, with trainees more likely to see simple eye infections. The
most common problems for referral (cataract and
glaucoma) were the same as for established GPs,
with similar rates of referral for each condition.1
Foreign body has been previously described as
the most common reason for referral to emergency departments, consistent with our findings for
GP trainees.14 There is no comparable literature
to compare the other associations of ophthalmic
problems.
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
Limitations of this study include not having
conducted multivariable analyses. We have,
therefore, not accounted for potential confounding in the associations we have established. Our
intention in this paper was confined to broadly
‘mapping the territory’ of GP trainee ophthalmic
problems.
Strengths and limitations
Our findings are broadly generalisable to Australian general practice training overall, as the
trainee participants had similar demographic
characteristics (age, sex and international medical graduate status) to the national GP trainee
cohort.15 As well, we conducted this study in five
regional training providers across five Australian states. We had a very high response rate for a
study of GPs.16
We coded our data using ICPC2-plus, thus enabling comparability with other Australian studies. ICPC2-plus is the international standard for
classifying primary care data, and the validity of
this system has previously been demonstrated.17
Implications for educational
practice and policy
Our findings have implications for general practice training and ophthalmology practice, and
more broadly, for the delivery of quality primary
health care.
We found that ophthalmic problems comprise
1.4% of all problems managed by GP trainees,
making it a common presentation – comparable
in frequency to urinary tract infection and anxiety.13 Ophthalmic problems are potentially complicated, with substantial potential for patient
harm; it has been found that acute eye problems
are frequently misdiagnosed or mismanaged
in Australian primary care.14 Furthermore, eye
medicine is a core element of both the Royal
Australian College of General Practitioners18
and the Australian College of Rural and Remote
Medicine19 curricula. Despite this, ophthalmology teaching has been found to be incomplete
in medical schools internationally, including
in Australia.2,3,20,21 Compounding this, there
is limited opportunity for ophthalmological
training and experience for junior hospital doctors. It is therefore critical that GP trainees have
adequate training in, and exposure to, a broad
range of ophthalmic problems during vocational
training.
Our results showed that relatively straightforward eye conditions, mainly conjunctivitis and
eyelid problems, were very common, with presentations of more serious eye diseases relatively uncommon. As well, ophthalmic procedures were
not commonly performed (at a rate of 0.053 per
100 total problems managed overall). Furthermore, our findings of trainees referring patients
more often, seeking more in-consultation information and advice, and generating more learning
goals, suggest that trainees find the diagnosis and
management of eye conditions difficult. This relatively narrow clinical exposure, coupled with the
inherent difficulty in managing such problems,
underscores the need for comprehensive, formal,
out-of-practice ophthalmology training in prevocational doctors, or GP trainee educational
release activities, including procedural skills. It
also suggests a need to focus on specific GPtrainer education in ophthalmology. A practical
eye skills workshop has been associated with
significant and sustained practice change in key
areas of ocular assessment in general practice.22
Implications for further research
We have presented an overview of the ophthalmic encounters of general practice trainees.
Particular aspects of trainee clinical practice
demand individual-focused analyses, including
the nature and specific sources of information
accessed and referrals made to specialists. There
is a need to evaluate the existing delivery of the
ophthalmology curriculum at the postgraduate level in Australia. Future work should also
include the actual preparedness of GP trainees
in managing eye conditions; an assessment of
trainer confidence and ability in the provision of
support to trainees managing eye conditions; and
an assessment of resources accessed by trainers
and trainees. As well, developing, implementing
and assessing an affordable model of combined
clinical and online education in the field of ophthalmology for GP trainees would be a suitable
area for further research.
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
301
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EDUCATION
References
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to
acknowledge the registrars,
supervisors and practices
involved in this study.
FUNDING
The study was funded
by the participating
educational organisations:
General Practice Training
Valley to Coast, the
Victorian Metropolitan
Alliance, General Practice
Training Tasmania, and
Adelaide to Outback GP
Training Programme.
These organisations were
funded by General Practice
Education and Training, an
Australian Commonwealth
Government initiative.
COMPETING INTERESTS
None declared.
302
1. Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, et al. General practice
activity in Australia 2013–14. General Practice Series no.
36. Sydney: Sydney University Press; 2014.
2. Fan JC, Sherwin T, McGhee CN. Teaching of ophthalmology in undergraduate curricula: a survey of Australasian
and Asian medical schools. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol.
2007;35(4):310–7. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01414.x
3. Welch S, Eckstein M. Ophthalmology teaching in
medical schools: a survey in the UK. Br J Ophthalmol.
2011;95(5):748–9. doi:10.1136/bjo.2010.195628
4. Mottow-Lippa L. Ophthalmology in the medical school
curriculum: reestablishing our value and effecting change.
Ophthalmology. 2009;116(7):1235–6. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.012
5. Morgan S, Magin PJ, Henderson KM, et al. Study protocol: the registrar clinical encounters in training (ReCEnT)
study. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):50. doi:10.1186/14712296-13-50
6. Lamberts H, Wood M. International classification of
primary care. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1987.
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1216.0 - Australian
Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC), July 2011.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011. [Cited 2016
Mar 1]. Available from: www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.
nsf/DetailsPage/1216.0July%202011?OpenDocument
8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2039.0 - Information paper: An introduction to Socio-economic Indexes for Areas
(SEIFA), 2006. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia;
2008. [Cited 2016 Mar 1]. Available from: www.abs.gov.
au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2039.0/
9. Sheldrick JH, Wilson AD, Vernon SA, Sheldrick CM. Management of ophthalmic disease in general practice. Br J
Gen Pract. 1993;43(376):459–62.
10. De Jong J, Visser MR, Wieringa-de Waard M. Exploring
differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and
their trainers. BMJ Open. 2011;1(2):e000318. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2011-000318
11. Kumar NL, Black D, McClellan K. Daytime presentations
to a metropolitan ophthalmic emergency department. Clin
Experiment Ophthalmol. 2005;33(6):586–92. doi:10.1111/
j.1442-9071.2005.01100.x
12. de Jong J, Visser MR, Mohrs J, Wieringa-de Waard M.
Opening the black box: the patient mix of GP trainees.
Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(591):e650–7. doi:10.3399/bjgp11X601361
13. Morgan S, Henderson K, Tapley A, et al. Problems managed by Australian general practice trainees: results from
the ReCEnT (Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training)
study. Educ Prim Care. 2014;25(3):140–8. doi:10.1080/147
39879.2014.11494264
14. Statham MO, Sharma A, Pane AR. Misdiagnosis of acute
eye diseases by primary health care providers: incidence
and implications. Med J Aus.t. 2008;189(7):402–4.
15. General Practice Education and Training Limited (GPET).
Annual Report to 30 June 2014. Canberra: GPET; 2014.
[Cited 2016 Mar 1]. Available from: www.gpet.com.au/
About-Us/Policies-/Annual-Report
16. Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, et al. Response rates in
GP surveys – trialling two recruitment strategies. Aust
Fam Physician. 2011;40(6):427–30.
17. Britt H, Meza RA, Del Mar C. Methodology of morbidity and treatment data collection in general practice in
Australia: a comparison of two methods. Fam Pract.
1996;13(5):462–7. doi:10.1093/fampra/13.5.462
18. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
(RACGP). The RACGP Curriculum for Australian General
Practice 2011. South Melbourne (AU): RACGP; 2011.
[Cited 2016 Mar 1]. Available from: http://curriculum.racgp.
org.au/statements/eye-and-ear-medicine/
19. Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM). ACRRM Primary Curriculum – 4th edition. Brisbane
(AU): ACRRM; 2013. [Cited 2016 Mar 1]. Available from:
www.acrrm.org.au/primarycurriculum/default.htm
20. Albert DM, Bartley GB. A proposal to improve ophthalmic education in medical schools. Ophthalmology.
2014;121(6):1157–9. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.04.003
21. Shah M, Knoch D, Waxman E. The state of ophthalmology medical student education in the United States
and Canada, 2012 through 2013. Ophthalmology.
2014;121(6):1160–3. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.025
22. Jackson C, De Jong I, Schuluter PJ. Changing clinician
practice. The RACGP/RACO National GP Eye Skills Workshop. Aust Fam Physician. 2002;31(3):285–90.
VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 2016 J OURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE