Eye screening only every 2 years

[Resurgam]

I needed to access the result of my recent eye screening on line this year, but got a letter to tell me so - could have simply told me but perhaps that is too simple and straightforward. Now I have yet another password to remember.

Another bit of information was that the frequency of eye testing will be reduced to two years after having two tests with no retinopathy detected.

There was no retinopathy - I did not realise that I'd been concerned about the result until I wasn't, but I somehow suspect that it is a cut back rather than a purely clinical decision.

 

[Outlier]

That is (I was going to say "short-sighted") a really stupid way of saving money, but I suppose the bean-counters don't have medical knowledge. So many better ways they could have chosen.

 

[Antje77]

It's been this way for ages in the Netherlands, makes sense to me.
Higher risk patients go once a year, lower risk once every two years.
With no previous background retinopathy and a non diabetic hba1c for years, it's very unlikely changes large enough to need treatment will happen anytime soon.
I'm happy to go every two years.

 

[jaywak]

I think you will find it has been that way in the UK for quite a while now , I agree with Antje it makes sense to spend the time and money on the more at risk patients to which we have to be grateful we have not joined yet .

 

[aylalake]

I have the NHS check every other year, interspersed by Specsavers checks, which also take images of my retinas and have on 2 occasions picked up things the NHS ones didn’t.

 

[Rachox]

I was diagnosed six and a half years ago so have had 6 screenings so far, and have always have them yearly. I had background retinopathy twice in year 2 and 5 so maybe that’s why?

 

[Resurgam]

I had background retinopathy at the first test - Specsavers did not detect it, gave me the wrong prescription too.
I just wonder - as there was no way I could have known, how long it might have been there, how long might I have continued undetected. I had already been 10 years with undisclosed high glucose and being nagged to eat carbs - I was a bit of a mess back then, but as I was 65 no one seemed to care very much.

 

[Lamont D]

Since I've been going optician for about two decades now, I just wait for the reminder letter. But I also remember going from one year to two for the screening, but every year for the eye test itself. So I think that can be where confusion is.

 

[jessj]

I had my third yearly & all was thankfully okay again. I have had the same person test me & she said "See you next year" I'll await my next appointment letter to er...see. Personally, I don't see a problem having it every two years if previous tests have been clear, different matter if you've had background. I actually have other eye problems ATM, not diabetes related, so having eye scans & all sorts going on, so I hope it goes to two yearly.

 

[jaywak]

I had background retinopathy at the first test - Specsavers did not detect it, gave me the wrong prescription too.
I just wonder - as there was no way I could have known, how long it might have been there, how long might I have continued undetected. I had already been 10 years with undisclosed high glucose and being nagged to eat carbs - I was a bit of a mess back then, but as I was 65 no one seemed to care very much

That does seem sad that you say they didn't care because you were 65 , three months and I'll be there .

 

[In Response]

There are two eye tests we are entitled to - retinal scan and free general optician’s eye test. The general optician’s eye tests has been every two years as long as I can remember. However, my optician has always told me I am entitled to more frequent tests if I notice changes in my vision.
Like others, I have heard the retinal scan is every two years unless they notice issues. This makes sense to me but my local retinal scanners continue to call me every year despite all clears for at least 5 years.

 

[Resurgam]

That does seem sad that you say they didn't care because you were 65 , three months and I'll be there .

The more I discover about my medical history the more I realise that they were on rails with their thinking and nothing I told them was considered relevant.
I will be 73 next April - assuming I get there, and feel a lot better than I did at diagnosis, and have done a lot too so medical care, whilst good to have when in a pinch, can be a secondary consideration when diet and other factors are possibly the key to the problem rather than tablets or inherently erroneous advice.