Partnering for pedagogy: Designing a curriculum for the transition to collaborative glaucoma care
Douglas Iaboni1, Marcelo Nicolela1, Mark Kepes2,
1Dalhousie University, 2Nova Scotia Association of Optometrists.
Author Disclosure Block:A. Sundaram: None. D. Iaboni: None. M. Nicolela: Membership on advisory boards or speakers’ bureaus; Name of for-profit or not-for-profit organization(s); Allergan Canada, Bausch-Lomb Canada, Alcon Canada, Labtician-Thea Pharmaceuticals. Membership on advisory boards or speakers’ bureaus; Description of relationship(s); Board Member. M. Kepes: None. J. Vianna: Membership on advisory boards or speakers’ bureaus; Name of for-profit or not-for-profit organization(s); EadieTech. Membership on advisory boards or speakers’ bureaus; Description of relationship(s); Consultant.
Purpose: The need for glaucoma care is
expected to outpace the number of trained ophthalmologists leading to the
exploration of innovative care delivery models and the development of
collaborative glaucoma care models across the world. While collaborative care
guidelines have been developed in Canada, limited research has been done to
study educational interventions that would be beneficial for facilitating the
transition. The goal of our project was to perform a learning needs assessment
with the input of both ophthalmologists and optometrists and to develop a
curriculum that can assist with the transition to a collaborative glaucoma care
Study Design: Survey research and curriculum development
Methods: An electronic survey was designed to assess the need for education and to develop educational objectives, content, and teaching methods for a glaucoma curriculum with the input of ophthalmologists and optometrists. The survey asked participants to rate their perceived need for objectives outlined in the Canadian Glaucoma Society’s (CGS) competency framework. The survey was broken into four general sections: Perceived value of Further education, Knowledge-based objectives, Physical Skills Objectives, and Learning Preferences. Descriptive statistics were performed on all survey questions. Objectives that were highly ranked on the survey by both optometrists and ophthalmologists were used to develop the curriculum.
Results: 65.6% of optometrists (84 of 125 optometrists) and 34.1% of ophthalmologists (15 of 41 ophthalmologists) in Nova Scotia completed the survey. Ophthalmologist and optometrist respondents generally agreed that knowledge areas and physical exam skills outlined in the CGS framework were important educational areas to address. Based on the survey results, a one-day educational seminar addressing knowledge-based and skills-based objectives was designed that outlined the objectives, content, and teaching methods to be used for an educational intervention for optometrists.
Conclusions: Through collaboration with optometrists and ophthalmologists, we designed a glaucoma medical education curriculum guided by CGS recommendations. We expect that the implementation of our curriculum will allow for the successful transition to a shared care model.