Proposed changes to retinopathy screening.

Wonder how they are deciding who is low risk and who are high, possibly based on current and past HbA1c results.

noblehead said:

Wonder how they are deciding who is low risk and who are high, possibly based on current and past HbA1c results.

Click to expand...

As I read it Low Risk = 2 succesive annual screenings that showed a stable condition. There was no mention of HbA1c or bgl control in the article that I could see, so it seems this is not one of the criteria.

Personally I have so far avoided diabetic problems, but had to have laser surgery following a stroke. I had new vessel growth in one eye that compensated for blocked artery, and so I have had recurring 6 monthly appointments for last 4 years. So far I am stable, and no sign of diabetic complications. I am surprised that bgl control is not one of the criteria. Stroke should also form a criterion.

No we would have to read the full story.

As the article says some people may welcome the change not having to attend an annual appointment, on the other hand this may worry some people as they feel reassured by getting the all clear after attending the Retinopathy Screening, hope they leave it open for the individual to decide if they want to go from one year to two.

I've had background retinopathy for a few years. It's stable and my hba1c is always under 7. But I'd still like to get screened every year. I wander if I will be high or low risk

I personally think it's a good idea .. But I refuse to have the drops put in my eyes .. My heart is more important than my eyes in a way. If I suffered half as much as the wife did when she had the drops put in I an sure it would result in a heart attack ! My diabetes was caught early and I am now in remission..so would like the dbn to back off now.

At my last screening, it was found there was slight change, which worried me but no treatment needed. I would prefer to have annual eye screening

Avocado Sevenfold said:

On both my hospital checks, I was not offered drops. Re the proposed changes, I would prefer annual hospital checks. I also get annual local optician checks. When it comes to eyesight, the more the better IMO.

Click to expand...

I used to get it without drops .. Then the person changed and they refused to do it without the drops in so I stopped getting it done

Hi. I have had 15 screenings in 15 yrs and each one has been normal. So I would be quite happy to go for retinal screening every 2 years.

Enclave said:

I personally think it's a good idea .. But I refuse to have the drops put in my eyes .. My heart is more important than my eyes in a way. If I suffered half as much as the wife did when she had the drops put in I an sure it would result in a heart attack ! My diabetes was caught early and I am now in remission..so would like the dbn to back off now.

Click to expand...

Good to hear about your thoughts on drops, not been there... yet, so thank you.

People considered to be at "low risk" of developing sight-threatening retinopathy are those who have no diabetic retinopathy detected at two successive screening appointments. It is proposed that these people only need to be screened every 2 years. Everyone else would be screened annually, as they are now.

The proposal was based on a large observational study. Researchers followed over 350,000 patients being screened in the UK Diabetic Eye Screening Programme over a period of 4 years. The researchers looked at the previous grades assigned at screening for everyone referred to hospital for diabetic retinopathy. They then compared them to the grades assigned to those who did not need referral. It was found that less than 0.3% of people who had no diabetic retinopathy detected for 2 years running developed sight-threatening retinopathy within 2 years.

The National Screening Committee say "Screening this group less often not only releases capacity, but also lessens the inconvenience for this group of attending appointments every year"

More details here:- http://legacy.screening.nhs.uk/diabeticretinopathy