A response from the University of Southampton | March 2017
Screening pathway
In the first box, the term âprivately educatedâ is used rather than using the term âindependent school educatedâ which is used elsewhere in the document. For consistency, I would suggest using the term âindependent schoolâ rather than âprivate schoolâ.
In the first box, âChildren identified in advanceâŚ..â is unclear. Children can only be identified in advance as âunlikely to be able to perform a crowded logMARâ. I have concerns about the ambiguity of simply stating that these children should âundergo an alternative pathway for orthoptic assessment of visual functionâ. I would suggest that such children are either referred direct to the diagnostic pathway, or enter the next stage of the pathway and have one visual acuity check, after which they are either referred to the diagnostic pathway (if it is deemed that a re-test will not be fruitful) or brought back for 1 re-test.
I note that in the âScreening pathwayâ a failure to perform the test then trigger one retest. However, in the âDiagnostic pathwayâ created by the RCOphth, a single failure to do the test triggers a referral to the eye department. This is therefore contrdictory and I would suggest that a single failure triggers referral to the eye unit as per the RCOphth âDiagnostic pathwayâ.
Parent information pre-screening
I would suggest that on the first page of this document it is made clear that the vision screening program is done nationwide, in consultation with GPâs for all children and is a government run initiative and not a study or something else. Many parents would likely read only this first page and including a comment to show that it is backed by GPâs (the most trusted point of contact with health services for most parents) and that it is done in all schools may help reduce opt-outs and garner buy-in from parents.
Learning and assessment pathway
âCompletionâ and âknowledgeâ are both spelled incorrectly in the second orange box.