GUEST
EDITORIAL
Acting in Our Patients' Best Interests
ODs seek a larger role in managing retinal disease. Are quality care and patient safety at risk?
GUEST
EDITORIAL BY DAVID W. PARKE II, MD
The
retina community has a strong record of advocating and acting in the best interests
of its patients. It is a record to be admired, it is a record worth maintaining,
and now it is a record being tested by optometry.
Consider the retina community's interest in promulgating standards
in fellowship training, establishing charitable foundations, or supporting initiatives
to address the cost-effective treatment of AMD. All carry consistent themes of concern
for quality of care, patient safety, and professionalism.
We, the retina community, must now decide how to respond to optometrists
who have decided to engage themselves in the medical and surgical care of retinal diseases.
Will we individually and/or collectively ignore it as a non-issue? Or will we consider
it a threat to quality of care and patient safety and act to protect the highest
standards
of patient care — much as we have in other issues?
In my opinion, this is a significant issue. Consider the
following
differences in training and education alone:
► The path to vitreoretinal subspecialization in ophthalmology
requires 4 years of medical school, 4 years of residency, and (nearly universally)
2 years of fellowship — a total of 10 years.
► The path to being an "optometric retina specialist" involves 4
years of optometry school and a period of self-study.
► The path to vitreoretinal subspecialization in ophthalmology requires
an RRC-mandated hundreds of cumulative surgical procedures with generally additional
hundreds in fellowship.
► There are hardly any requirements in optometry schools, because
in almost all states, surgery by optometrists is illegal. In fact, there are no
national optometric requirements for licensure or certification.
However, this remarkable educational differential has
not stopped
those within optometry who seek to change the optometric scope of practice.
Indeed,
at a recent national summit hosted by the American Optometric Association, attendees
agreed to:
► strive for delivery of care "with no restrictions on ... scope
of practice"
► employ new technologies for "treating ocular and systemic conditions/diseases"
► develop nationwide, uniform, self-regulated licensure
with a residency
program in optometric surgery.
THE NEW FRONTIER?
There were 200 attendees at the 2006 Optometric Retina Society meeting
in Boston with presentations and courses on OCT, fluorescein angiography, and use of
intravitreal medications. The Society's Web site (www.optometricretinasociety.org)
refers to it as "The New Optometric Frontier." Additionally, one can easily locate
online certificate-bearing courses for optometrists on injection techniques.
In Oklahoma, optometrists are permitted to perform some invasive
vitreoretinal procedures. When this was challenged by ophthalmologists at a State
Board of Examiners in Optometry meeting, the challenge was ignored. Optometry seeks to
expand the "Oklahoma language" to other states.
THE
DANGER IN COMPLACENCY
In discussing this issue with our colleagues, I've heard
the statement,
"Let the market decide." Some believe that ophthalmology's unique training and expertise
will trump optometry in the marketplace. However, experience dictates that the market
is not always rational. An independent survey released less than a year ago by the
National Consumers League revealed that one-third of respondents believed optometrists
had medical degrees. More importantly, to take a caveat emptor approach regarding
this issue is to abrogate our responsibility as advocates for our patients' safety.
Others have taken the stance that education can never be a bad
thing and that, as subspecialists, we should teach optometrists about the latest in
vitreoretinal therapy so that they will be better optometrists. This is, in my opinion,
a superficially attractive position, taking the "education for education's sake"
perspective. It ignores, however, that some ethicists believe in a fundamental responsibility
of the educator — to ensure, to the best of his or her ability, that students have
the prior training, expertise, and professional context to use the information provided
in a responsible fashion.
Consider this analogy: What if the law permitted anyone to perform
surgery? Would you bear ethical (let alone legal) responsibility for delivering a
1-hour skills-transfer course in intravitreal injections to college students? Of course
you would. Now consider this: the majority of optometry schools in the United States
do not require a college degree.
A recent editorial in Retina Times by Roy Levit, MD, and
George Williams, MD, pointed out that at 1 school of optometry, 62% of the students
had no more than a high school diploma (Spring 2006, page 7).
Whether it's a "time out" in surgery, an informed consent in the
office, or the establishment of guidelines for vitreoretinal fellowships, we strive
to act in the best interests of our patients. If you believe that quality care and
patient safety demand ophthalmologic training, you must work to ensure it.
ACT NOW TO PROTECT YOUR PATIENTS
This issue will not be decided in the marketplace or in the medical-legal
courtrooms. Grassroots political advocacy and personal engagement will determine the
outcome. It directly affects us, our profession, and our patients. This is not an issue
for "others" — there are no others.
How can you make a dfference? Contribute to the American Academy
of Ophthalmology Surgical Scope Fund (www.aao.org) and to your state ophthalmology
PAC. Equally important, become personally active in your state society and voice your
concerns to your state officials. Recognize that this is not just an ophthalmology
issue; build coalitions of other physicians, patients, and community leaders.
What is best for your patients?
David
W. Parke II, MD, is president and CEO of the Dean McGee Eye Institute and is Edward L. Gaylord Professor and Chair at the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Oklahoma
College of Medicine, Oklahoma City. Dr. Parke has no
financial interest in the topic
discussed within this article.
Retinal Physician, Issue: September 2006