EVALUATION OF GLAUCOMA PATIENTS REFERRED TO A UNIVERSITY CLINIC DURING ONE-YEAR

Purpose: In the spring of 1994, the post-referral waiting time for gla ucoma patients at our institution was approximately 7 months. In an at tempt to evaluate and possibly reduce this waiting time we compared th e referral criteria to the actual treatment requirements of 472 patien ts admitted for glaucoma in 1995. Results: 175 patients were referred as glaucoma suspects, 134 as chronic simple glaucoma, and 123 as capsu lar glaucoma. In addition, 40 patients were referred as other types of glaucoma, Elevated IOP was the main criterion for referral in 133 (76 %) of glaucoma suspects. The diagnosis of glaucoma could not, however, be confirmed in 53 (31%) glaucoma suspects. 93 (69%) patients with si mple open angle glaucoma and 103 (84%) patients with capsular glaucoma were also referred because of IOP greater than or equal to 22 mmHg. M aximally tolerated medication was not used by 44% of open angle glauco ma patients at time of referral. Conclusion: The clinical follow-up of glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects should primarily take place a t an ophthalmologist's office and the new effective glaucoma drugs and laser treatments should also be more actively in use. The cooperation between the referring ophthalmologists and the university clinic shou ld be improved. Hospitalisation turned out to be unnecessary because, with a few exceptions, all procedures could have been performed on an out-patient basis, which is a general practice in most glaucoma clinic s today. The university clinic should focus only on those patients who need special evaluation or surgical treatment.