The University of Sheffield
Final draft-BIOS Screening Audit report 2015-2016 040717_ORDA upload.pdf (1.02 MB)

BIOS Screening Audit report 2015-2016

Download (1.02 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2017-11-09, 15:59 authored by Jill CarltonJill Carlton, Helen Griffiths, Paolo Mazzone
Aim: This audit utilises data submitted by Head Orthoptists to the British and Irish Orthoptic Society (BIOS). The aim is to provide insights into vision screening practices across the United Kingdom (UK) for the academic year 2015-2016, compare the findings to the previous vision screening audit for academic year 2014-2015 and provide evidence for future decision making regarding best practice.

Method: Fifty-nine sites provided data with four instances of site amalgamation. Site representatives were contacted to confirm new area details, duplicated submissions were identified and one submission in each case was used in the analysis. Fifty-two sites remained (number of children screened (n) = 168,239). Thirty-eight sites (n=148,159) provided further screening outcome data. Of these, twenty sites (n=6,101) provided further diagnostic test data on the number of true positives (+ve). The method of calculating True +ve scores was explored and the implications discussed.

Results: The number of sites participating in the current BIOS vision screening audit for academic year 2015-2016 increased from the previous academic year (2014-2015) from 56 to 59. This number of 59 reduces to 52 when combined data and duplicated submissions were accounted for. The mean coverage decreased from 91% in the academic year 2014-2015 to 89% in the current audit of academic year 2015-2016.

Calculation of mean true +ve for the sites was conducted using three separate methods. Whilst noting methods 1 and 2, this audit focuses on method 3 for interpretation. Sites providing Orthoptic delivered screening (n=3123) showed a mean true +ve of 79%, Vision Screener trained by an Orthoptist using the BIOS package (n=889) showed a mean True +ve of 66%, Vision Screener trained by an Orthoptist using a local package (n= 1452) showed a mean True +ve of 66%, and Vision Screener not trained by an Orthoptist (n=637) showed mean True +ve of 41%.

Conclusions: This audit concludes that there is a need for further investigation into the effects of training received on True +ve scores. It suggests that the level of training received/professional administering the test affects the number of True +ve. The implications are discussed.


Usage metrics

    School of Health and Related Research - HEDS




    Ref. manager