Is the Patient Record Sufficient for Prescribing Low-Vision Magnification Aids or Is a Consultation in a Low-Vision Clinic Required?

Abstract

Many visually impaired and blind patients regain reading ability by using magnification aids. They are tested and prescribed in a time-intensive consultation at our low-vision clinic. Thus, the question arises if it is possible to automate the selection and prescription of low-vision aids only on the basis of the patients' records. The following parameters were extracted from the database of medical records from the low-vision clinic between 2001 and 2006: diagnosis, visual acuity, magnification need, prescribed low-vision aid and prescription request. The prescriptions (optic magnifiers, electronic magnifiers and closed-circuit television) were predicted by statistical models and compared with the real prescription. The database research provided the records of 1203 patients. Sixty-four percent were female and the median age was 80 years. The prescriptions consisted of 29% closed-circuit televisions, 11% electronic magnifiers, 34% optic magnifiers and 26% other aids or no aids. Overall, the statistically predicted prescription matched the real prescription of the magnification aids in only 73% of the cases. The magnification need was the most significant statistical factor. The reliability of an automated prescription of low-vision magnification aids on the basis of the patient record was not sufficient to implement this in the standard clinical process. Thus, an individual and personal consultation with detailed testing of magnification aids is important. In addition to the prescription of low-vision magnification aids, a psycho-social consultation is also provided in a low-vision clinic.