The NSC is now suggesting that people with type 1 diabetes at low risk of sight loss should be scree

[waphead]

I have just read about recommendation from the NSC to move retinopathy testing to every two years for people with Type 1 unless at risk etc
Looking at this topic on the Diabetes website the following is shown

"According to the NHS, 1,280 new cases of blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy are reported each year in England alone, while a further 4,200 people in the country are thought to be at risk of retinopathy-related vision loss".

Bearing in mind these facts why should testing be increased to 2 years, cost cutting again. Before long it will change to 4 years!
I assume Type 2 diabetics will fall into this same category.

We constantly have to fight to get same level of care that is given by GP's regarding the 15 essentials, test meters and strips etc and now they want to mess about with the one service we do all get.

 

[poohtiggy]

I have just read about recommendation from the NSC to move retinopathy testing to every two years for people with Type 1 unless at risk etc
Looking at this topic on the Diabetes website the following is shown

"According to the NHS, 1,280 new cases of blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy are reported each year in England alone, while a further 4,200 people in the country are thought to be at risk of retinopathy-related vision loss".


Bearing in mind these facts why should testing be increased to 2 years, cost cutting again. Before long it will change to 4 years!
I assume Type 2 diabetics will fall into this same category.

We constantly have to fight to get same level of care that is given by GP's regarding the 15 essentials, test meters and strips etc and now they want to mess about with the one service we do all get.

I found this worrying too, although what they are saying is, if you have two consecutive tests come back clear then you are low risk and therefore it's safe to screen every two years. What worries me is this, I had two 'clear' results but the third one showed signs of backround Retinopathy.
So, assuming this was already in place, after two clear results they would have left screening for two years then found Retinopathy that had been there for over a year or longer, doesn't make sense. I can't see how less screening will save money and not only that they are doing the same with breast screening for women. There was an article in yesterday's unanswered threads

 

[Dark Horse]

When the diabetic retinopathy screening service was set up, the founders made an educated guess about often screening should take place. After a few years of screening annually, the NSC had enough data to analyse whether that interval was appropriate for everyone. Their conclusions were that if a person has 2 successive screenings where no retinopathy is detected, they have a very low risk of retinopathy and only need to be screened every 2 years. For everyone else, the risk is higher and screening will still be annual.

So, anyone who gets a "background retinopathy" letter should still be screened every year.

It's true that increasing the intervals between screening should reduce some costs, but that needed to be done because the number of diabetics is increasing every year. The advantage for people at low risk is they don't need so many appointments. This saves them having to take time off work, travel to the appointment etc. It also reduces the worry and inconvenience of false positives where the test gives a positive result even though the person doesn't have sight-threatening retinopathy.