Optometrists face “funding, regulatory, technological, cultural, and inter-professional barriers to maximising the utilisation of their professional skills and qualifications”, Optometry Australia (OA) has warned.
And OA has highlighted that the scope of practice of optometrists in Australia is more limited than in comparable countries like New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.
“Differences in scope between Australia and New Zealand, including in relation to oral prescribing, are noteworthy as they mean that Australian optometrists with equivalent qualifications that are duly recognised in New Zealand are unable to practise in Australia to the same scope as their counterparts across the Tasman,” the OA said.
The comments were made in a submission to the Australian Government’s ‘Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce Review’, known as the ‘Scope of Practice Review’. The review, a recommendation of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce Report, assesses the barriers that prevent Australia’s healthcare practitioners, including optometrists, from working to the full extent of their skills and training to deliver best practice primary care.
OA CEO Skye Cappuccio said Optometry Australia strongly supports the Scope of Practice Review, describing it as crucial for improving access to eye care across the country.
“As the first port of call for 80% of people in relation to ocular health and often identifying eye disease in asymptomatic patients, optometrists are an integral part of Australia’s primary healthcare system,” she said.
BARRIERS TO CARE
But Ms Cappuccio said the various barriers faced by optometrists can prevent them from providing comprehensive treatment and patient support, and make it more difficult to work collaboratively with other health professionals managing chronic eye health conditions.
“Despite clear evidence that traditional models of eye care are not meeting patient demand and that collaborative approaches are more effective for patients and health care providers, efforts to diffuse these collaborative approaches more broadly in the health system are frequently stymied by funding, regulatory, and decisionmaking barriers.
“As a result, the opportunity for optometrists to practise to their full scope as qualified eye health professionals in multidisciplinary teams managing patients with a range of chronic eye health conditions remains confined to a relatively small number of geographic locations and care settings,” the OA submission said.
“Despite these challenges, optometrists have demonstrated their willingness to embrace enhancements to their scope of practice.
“More than two-thirds of registered optometrists are therapeutically endorsed… moreover, collaborative models of care involving optometrists, ophthalmologists, and other health professionals have emerged across Australia, in public and private hospital settings, and in some of the most remote and disadvantaged communities with the assistance of telehealth.”
EXAMINE FUNDING
OA urged the Review to undertake a comparison of the current scope of practice of individual health professions in Australia and in other countries with similar health systems. This would help identify possible scope enhancements that could benefit patients and the overall productivity of Australia’s health system.
In its submission, OA also asked the Review to examine the incompatibilities between federal (Medicare) and State and Territory (hospital) funding arrangements, which can inhibit community-based health professionals from practising to their full scope, providing care to patients with hospital referrals.
“In a similar vein, funding incentives in the private health system can discourage minor medical procedures from being undertaken in a non-hospital setting. Devolution of hospital funding approaches to the local health area level can also inhibit the scaling of innovative models of care. All these funding mechanisms are potential impediments to full scope of practice and should be considered by the Review,” the submission said.
The full submission is available on OA’s website. At the time of going to print, a second round of submissions was being received by the Review, with a due date of early March.
