UNASSIGNED: As the Australian population grows and ages, the demand for eye care services, and nurses to provide the services, is expected to increase. This will impact nurses, who are Australia\'s largest health-care provider group. Understanding and mapping the current role and use of nurses in eye care is an essential first step for future health workforce planning and development. To map their engagement, we undertook a scoping review to gain an understanding of the current Australian nurse eye care workforce landscape, to help guide and support future workforce development activities. Secondly, we evaluated if publications in this field incorporated or mentioned the Australian Ophthalmic Nursing Association\'s National Standards (Practice standards) in their publication. This review also offers other nations and eye care providers the opportunity to evaluate their own health workforce plan and nurse utility.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a review of academic and grey literature, via various search engines, and an inclusion and exclusion criteria.
UNASSIGNED: We uncovered 11 publications. Of those, five were academic papers examining extended and advanced nursing practice, one was a letter to the editor, two were industry feature reviews, two were industry reports and the final was the Practice Standards. Key themes throughout indicated the benefit of nurse training and nurse involvement in eye care. Overall, there was insufficient information or data to describe nurse deployment, practice and utility. Finally, the Practice Standards were not referenced in any publication.
UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient published information to calculate the level and involvement of nurses, or describe their existing role, advancement or future deployment in eye care in Australia. Without clear information, Australia is unable to develop effective health workforce strategies to attract, train, retain, and appropriately deploy nurses to meet future eye care needs.

The prevalence of eye disease and visual impairment in care home residents is disproportionately higher compared to the general population. Access to eye care services and treatment can be variable for this vulnerable population.
This paper reviews the available evidence of services and interventions for delivering eye care to care home residents. The key review questions are: (1) What is the existing evidence for eye care interventions or services (including service configuration) for care home residents? (2) Does the provision of these interventions or services improve outcomes?
Literature search of EMBASE/MEDLINE for original papers published since 1995. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/papers. Data were extracted and evaluated using narrative synthesis.
13 original papers met the inclusion criteria. Domiciliary optometrist services improved diagnosis and management of eye conditions, with one study showing 53% of residents benefited from direct ophthalmology intervention. Provision of interventions, such as cataract surgery, refractive error correction and low-vision rehabilitation, improved visual acuity and vision-related quality of life but did not improve cognitive or physical function, depression or health-related quality of life. There was little UK-based literature to inform eye service design or interventions to improve outcomes such as falls.
Care home-based eye assessments improve the management of eye conditions. Interventions improve visual acuity and vision-related quality of life. Further research is needed to better understand current UK services, access difficulties or examples of good practice as well as to identify and test cost-effective service models for this vulnerable group.

Objective: Optometrists are increasingly adopting teleoptometry as an approach to delivering eye care. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created further opportunities for optometrists to utilize innovation in telehealth to deliver eye care to individuals who experience access barriers. A systematic literature review is presented detailing the evidence to support the use of teleoptometry. Methods: Databases of MEDLINE, Global Health, and Web of Science were searched, and articles were included if they reported any involvement of optometrists in the delivery of telehealth. Findings were reported according to the mode of telehealth used to deliver eye care, telehealth collaboration type, and the format and geographical areas where eye care via telehealth is being delivered. Results: Twenty-seven relevant studies were identified. Only 11 studies included the role of optometrists as a member of the telehealth team where the scope of practice extended beyond creating and receiving referrals, collecting clinical data at in-person services, and continuing in-person care following consultation with an ophthalmologist. Both synchronous and asynchronous telehealth services were commonly utilized. Optometrists were most commonly involved in ophthalmology-led telehealth collaborations (n = 19). Eight studies reported optometrists independently delivering primary eye care via telehealth, and commonly included videoconferencing. Conclusion: The application of teleoptometry to deliver eye care is rapidly emerging, and appears to be a viable adjunct to the delivery of in-person optometry services. The review highlighted the scarcity of evidence surrounding the clinical benefits, safety, and outcomes of teleoptometry. Further research is required in this area.

The prevalence of visual impairment (VI) continues to rise, despite efforts to reduce it. The burden of disease negatively impacts the quality of life, education opportunities, and other developments in various communities. Henceforth, this study aimed to determine and quantify the major causes of VI in South Africa, to ensure accurate interventions in addressing them and to reduce the burden of ocular disease in that context. A systematic scoping review was conducted to map evidence on VI and ocular diseases, using the PRISMA-P guidelines. English studies were searched for on PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCOhost using various search terms. The eligible articles underwent screening and ultimately data extraction to identify major causes of VI in South Africa. A meta-analysis further resulted in pooled prevalence estimates (PPE) using the Inverse Variance Heterogeneity (IVhet) model. Of the 13,527 studies screened at three levels, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for the final review; however, 9 studies were eligible for quality assessment performed by two independent reviewers. The quality index for the included studies was 71.1%. The prevalence of VI was 2% for blindness and 12% for moderate and severe visual impairment (MSVI). Pooled prevalence identified uncorrected refractive error (URE) (43%), cataract (28%), glaucoma (7%), and diabetic retinopathy (4%) as major causes of MSVI. The leading causes of blindness were untreated cataracts (54%), glaucoma (17%), and diabetic retinopathy (57%). Ocular diseases causing VI are avoidable and similar to those of low-to-middle income countries. MSVI were caused by URE, cataract, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy. Blindness was mainly caused by cataracts, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy. A strategic plan to manage these conditions would largely reduce the burden of VI in the country. Early screenings and interventions to maximize care at primary health levels would decrease the burden of avoidable blindness in the country significantly.

Evidence-based practice is fundamental to providing quality care, patient satisfaction and judicious use of limited healthcare resources. However, variability in evidence-based eye care delivery has been reported. Given the important role of optometrists in delivering primary eye care, a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to providing optometric care is required. This systematic review aimed to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) of eye care delivery by optometrists and interventions that may improve eye care delivery.
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting barriers and facilitators to eye care delivery published between 1999 and 2020. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to analyse data (quotations, interpretive summaries, survey result) with barriers and facilitators coded to one or more of the 14 domains, and used to identify the key behavioural domains influencing eye care delivery based on frequency of coding, elaboration and stated importance in the study. Influential domains were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to improve eye care delivery. Of the 802 studies retrieved from the search, 30 were included. Frequently identified barriers were time constraints, resources and equipment issues, patient factors, lack of awareness, skill proficiency deficits and negative attitudes and beliefs. Frequently identified facilitators were adequate time, resources and equipment, education, skill proficiency and understanding the relevancy of the eye care provided. The key TDF domains influencing eye care delivery were \'environmental context and resources\' (time, resources, equipment issues, patient factors), \'knowledge\' (awareness issues), \'skills\' (skills proficiency) and \'belief about consequences\' (beliefs and relevancy). Intervention functions that may improve eye care delivery were education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion and modelling.
The barriers and facilitators identified in this review were diverse and located at both the practitioner and organisational levels. Four TDF domains were found to be influential determinants of eye care practice. Intervention functions identified in this study can be used to improve the appropriateness of primary eye care delivery.

For many people, settling in a new country is associated with a new identity as an \'ethnic minority\', one that can remain through future generations. People who are culturally distinct from the dominant population group may experience a variety of barriers to accessing healthcare, including linguistic and cultural barriers in communication, navigation of an unfamiliar health system and unconscious or overt discrimination. Here, we outline the protocol of a scoping review to identify, describe and summarise interventions aimed at improving access to eye care for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups residing in high-income countries.
We will search MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health from their inception to July 2019. We will include studies of any design that describe an intervention to promote access to eye care for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups. Two authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Reference lists from all included articles will also be searched. In cases of disagreement between initial reviewers, a third author will help resolve the conflict. For each included article, we will extract data about the target population, details of the intervention delivered and the effectiveness of or feedback from the intervention. Overall findings will be summarised with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
This review will summarise existing literature and as such ethics approval is not required. We will publish the review in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal, and draft appropriate summaries for dissemination to the wider community. This wider community could include clinicians, policymakers, health service managers and organisations that work with non-dominant ethnic groups. Our findings will also feed into the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

Globally, there are an estimated 370 million Indigenous people across 90 countries. Indigenous people experience worse health compared with non-Indigenous people, including higher rates of avoidable visual impairment. Countries such as Australia and Canada have service delivery models aimed at improving access to eye care for Indigenous people. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise these service delivery models to improve access to eye care for Indigenous people in high-income countries.
An information specialist will conduct searches on MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health. All databases will be searched from their inception date with no language limits used. We will search the grey literature via websites of relevant government and service provider agencies. Field experts will be contacted to identify additional articles, and reference lists of relevant articles will be searched. All quantitative and qualitative study designs will be eligible if they describe a model of eye care service delivery aimed at Indigenous populations. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each service delivery model, we will extract data on the context, inputs, outputs, Indigenous engagement and enabling health system functions. Where models were evaluated, we will extract details. We will summarise findings using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
Ethical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve access to eye care services for Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. The findings will be useful to policymakers, health service managers and clinicians responsible for eye care services in New Zealand, and other high-income countries with Indigenous populations. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings.

The prevalence of dementia and ocular pathology increases with age and many older individuals affected by such diseases are being institutionalised. The objectives of this systematic review are to describe the level of eye care services being offered to older institutionalised individuals, present the prevalence of visual impairment in those with dementia, and describe the interventions offered to visually impaired residents with dementia.
A literature review was performed in four relevant databases, limited to peer-reviewed journals published in English and French, between the years 1984 and 2014. The review targeted individuals 65 years of age or older, residing in long-term care facilities/nursing homes and affected by dementia. Only relevant articles addressing at least one of the three objectives were retained for this review.
The literature search identified 440 abstracts that were all read by each of the authors. After consensus, 92 articles were identified as potentially relevant and read. In the end, 28 were found to address at least one of the three objectives and were kept for the review. The results indicated that eye care services for older institutionalised individuals are sub-optimal, that the prevalence of visual impairment remains high in that population, and that interventions such as optimising the ocular refraction, performing cataract surgery, providing low vision rehabilitation and adapting the environment can be beneficial to residents.
This systematic review demonstrated the benefits of providing regular eye care to long-term care facility/nursing home residents, including those at all levels of dementia. Additionally, it documented the benefits of various treatment modalities such as cataract surgery, staff training, environmental adaptations and visual rehabilitation for improving several aspects of the residents\' quality of life. This review, however, has highlighted the fact that additional studies are required to strengthen the findings reported so far, and importantly, to evaluate the various treatment modalities described herein for residents in the most advanced stages of dementia.