Developing a Model of a Dry Eye Practice in Finland
Nokipii, Päivi (2022)
2022
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2022100320748
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2022100320748
Tiivistelmä
Purpose
This study aims to build a dry eye practice model in Finland based on the information from four expert interviews and the Dry Eye Workshop literature reports.
Methods
A qualitative survey study using semi-structured and open-ended questionnaires was designed to identify evidence-based components of a practice model. Dry eye experts from Finland (n=1), Norway (n=1), and the UK (n=2) were invited to participate based on their long-term experience in dry eye practice and participation in education. Expert interviews were recorded and held online, transcribed, and inductive content analysis was performed, followed by deductive content analysis of literature.
Results
Based on the expert interviews, osmolarity measurement was routinely done in the UK but occasionally in Finland and Norway. Regarding the MMP-9 inflammatory test, the experts' opinions were dissenting. Advanced technology was highly valued and used among the experts. All agreed on the need for a therapeutic license for optometrists in Finland as a part of dry eye practice.
Conclusions
Considering the prevalence of dry eye, assessment and management require commitment, continuity, and cooperation with eye care professionals and the patient. The dry eye practice model helps to achieve the desired goal – quality dry eye care with better compliance in Finland. We need the therapeutic license for optometrists in Finland to manage dry eyes more efficiently. Standardization of dry eye practice could improve quality care in the future.
This study aims to build a dry eye practice model in Finland based on the information from four expert interviews and the Dry Eye Workshop literature reports.
Methods
A qualitative survey study using semi-structured and open-ended questionnaires was designed to identify evidence-based components of a practice model. Dry eye experts from Finland (n=1), Norway (n=1), and the UK (n=2) were invited to participate based on their long-term experience in dry eye practice and participation in education. Expert interviews were recorded and held online, transcribed, and inductive content analysis was performed, followed by deductive content analysis of literature.
Results
Based on the expert interviews, osmolarity measurement was routinely done in the UK but occasionally in Finland and Norway. Regarding the MMP-9 inflammatory test, the experts' opinions were dissenting. Advanced technology was highly valued and used among the experts. All agreed on the need for a therapeutic license for optometrists in Finland as a part of dry eye practice.
Conclusions
Considering the prevalence of dry eye, assessment and management require commitment, continuity, and cooperation with eye care professionals and the patient. The dry eye practice model helps to achieve the desired goal – quality dry eye care with better compliance in Finland. We need the therapeutic license for optometrists in Finland to manage dry eyes more efficiently. Standardization of dry eye practice could improve quality care in the future.