Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study

View ORCID ProfileKathleen Vancleef, Michael J Colwell, Olivia Hewitt, View ORCID ProfileNele Demeyere
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19013243
Kathleen Vancleef
University of Oxford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kathleen Vancleef
  • For correspondence: kathleen.vancleef@psy.ox.ac.uk
Michael J Colwell
University of Oxford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: michael.colwell@psy.ox.ac.uk
Olivia Hewitt
University of Oxford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: olivia.hewitt@hmc.ox.ac.uk
Nele Demeyere
University of Oxford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nele Demeyere
  • For correspondence: nele.demeyere@psy.ox.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

AIM: We aimed to document current clinical practice and needs in screening for visual perception problems after stroke to inform development of new screening tools. METHODS: We interviewed 25 health care professionals (12 occupational therapists, 13 orthoptists) from 16 organisations in England. Interviews were transcribed and coded in NVivo Software. Data were thematically analysed using the Value Proposition Canvas, a model which establishes what people want to achieve, the challenges they face and what facilitates their jobs. RESULTS: Participants' understanding of visual perception varied and often included sensory and cognitive deficits. Occupational therapists commonly screened for visual field deficits and hemispatial neglect, while other aspects of visual cognition were rarely assessed. They decided on referrals to orthoptists for further assessment. Screening generally occurred during functional assessments and/or with in-house developed tools. Challenges to practice were: lack of time, lack of training, environmental and stroke survivor factors (e.g. aphasia), insufficient continuation of care, and test characteristics (e.g. not evidence-based). Facilitators to practice were: quick and practical tools, experienced staff or tools with minimal training requirements, a streamlined care pathway between a stroke unit and eye hospital supported by occupational therapists and orthoptists. CONCLUSION: Screening employs non-standardised assessments and rarely covers visual perceptual deficits in higher order perception. Our service evaluation demonstrates the need for a standardised visual perception screen, which should ideally be 15 minutes or less, be portable, and require minimal equipment. The screen should be suitable for bedside testing in noisy environments, inclusive for participants with aphasia and evidence-based.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Stroke Association [grant number TSA PDF 2017/03, TSA LECT 2015/02].

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Raw data cannot be share to ensure anonymity of participants.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 29, 2019.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
Share
Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study
Kathleen Vancleef, Michael J Colwell, Olivia Hewitt, Nele Demeyere
medRxiv 19013243; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19013243
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study
Kathleen Vancleef, Michael J Colwell, Olivia Hewitt, Nele Demeyere
medRxiv 19013243; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19013243

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Ophthalmology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (5)
  • Allergy and Immunology (5)
  • Anesthesia (5)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (36)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (1)
  • Dermatology (8)
  • Emergency Medicine (3)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (18)
  • Epidemiology (143)
  • Forensic Medicine
  • Gastroenterology (14)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (58)
  • Geriatric Medicine (8)
  • Health Economics (5)
  • Health Informatics (40)
  • Health Policy (13)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (9)
  • Hematology (3)
  • HIV/AIDS (26)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (52)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (5)
  • Medical Education (18)
  • Medical Ethics (3)
  • Nephrology (5)
  • Neurology (60)
  • Nursing (4)
  • Nutrition (12)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (6)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (11)
  • Oncology (35)
  • Ophthalmology (16)
  • Orthopedics (1)
  • Otolaryngology (6)
  • Pain Medicine (6)
  • Palliative Medicine (1)
  • Pathology (8)
  • Pediatrics (16)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (6)
  • Primary Care Research (7)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (70)
  • Public and Global Health (58)
  • Radiology and Imaging (20)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (18)
  • Respiratory Medicine (10)
  • Rheumatology (8)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (4)
  • Sports Medicine (7)
  • Surgery (7)
  • Toxicology
  • Transplantation (4)
  • Urology (1)