Evidence Hub

Confidence of Emergency Department doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies: a systematic review

Jessica Mendall, A. Tolley, V. Parisi, Stella Hornby, Ruth Brown, Victoria Nowak

Eye, 2024

13 citations

Abstract

Eye emergencies constitute a significant portion of attendances to general Emergency Departments (EDs) in the UK, therefore it is important to assess the confidence of doctors who work in this setting in managing these potentially sight- and life-threatening presentations. This systematic review aims to assess the confidence of UK doctors working in general EDs in managing ophthalmic emergencies. MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), ProQuest Central and Web of Science databases and grey literature were searched from inception to 1 October 2022 for publications that (1) featured doctors working in UK general EDs, (2) assessed doctors’ confidence in managing ophthalmic emergencies, (3) contained original data, (4) were full-text, and (5) written in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the AXIS tool. 462 articles were screened, and 7 papers included for data extraction, which collectively assessed the confidence of 956 doctors working in EDs in managing ophthalmic emergencies. There was a widespread lack of confidence amongst foundation doctors, which has worsened over time. Most doctors lacked confidence in performing funduscopy and using the slit-lamp, and considered formal ophthalmology training received in EDs to be inadequate. Evidence suggests a lack of confidence amongst foundation doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies. High-quality evidence investigating the confidence amongst more experienced Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians was lacking. It is important…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free