Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework

Victorian ophthalmology 

service planning framework

Victorian ophthalmology 

service planning framework

Published by the Victorian Government Department of Human Services 

Melbourne, Victoria 

This publication is copyright, no part may be reproduced by any process 

except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. 

Authorised by the State Government of Victoria, 595 Collins Street, Melbourne. 

This document may also be downloaded from the Department of Human 

Services web site at www.health.vic.gov.au/ophthalmology 

© Copyright State of Victoria 2005 

October 2005 

(050908)

Contents 

1 Executive summary 1 

1.1 Background 1 

1.2 Methodology 2 

1.3 Ophthalmology services in Victoria 2 

1.4 Discussion and recommendations 3 

2 Introduction 9 

2.1 Policy context for the future directions of ophthalmology services 9 

2.2 Eye care initiatives 11 

2.3 Methodology 13 

2.4 Report structure 14 

2.5 Scope and definitions 14 

Eye care professionals 14 

Ophthalmology service system 16 

3 Ophthalmology services in Victoria 17 

3.1 Geographic distribution of services 17 

3.2 Current service provision 19 

3.3 Predicted changes to ophthalmology services 20 

4 Discussion and recommendations 21 

4.1 Access 21 

Waiting times for services 21 

Elective surgery management and referral 24 

Eye care literacy 26 

Referral pathways 27 

Cost of eye care services 28 

Service distribution 30 

Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital 35 

Forecast demand for eye services 36 

Forecast prevalence of eye health conditions 39 

Cost of vision loss 42 

4.2 Appropriateness 43 

Utilisation rates 43 

Models of care and workforce roles 46 

Workforce 48

4.3 Efficiency 49 

Technical efficiency: models of care and work settings 49 

Allocative efficiency 52 

Funding and price 52 

4.4 Acceptability 55 

4.5 Effectiveness 56 

4.6 Safety 57 

4.7 Information management 58 

4.8 Competence, education and research 59 

Education and training 60 

Research 63 

4.9 Consumer involvement 64 

4.10 Governance and leadership 66 

5. Implementation plan 67 

5.1 Health service strategic plans and statement of priorities 67 

5.2 Implementation plan 68

Appendices 

1. Ophthalmology Service Planning Advisory Committee membership 69 

2. Terms of reference for service planning framework 70 

3. List of responses to the discussion paper 71 

4. List of attendance at stakeholder consultation meetings 72 

5. Quality framework dimensions and organisational elements 75 

6. Statewide provision of ophthalmology services 2002–03 77 

7. Ophthalmology DRGs and ESRGs 1999–2000 to 2002-03 81 

8. Detailed ophthalmology forecasts 84 

9. Estimated resident population 2003 and 2016 87 

10. Key performance indicators suggested by stakeholders 90 

Glossary of terms 93 

References 96 

Websites 98

Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework 1 

1 Executive summary 

Nearly half a million Australians have impaired vision, with the prevalence of vision loss 

trebling for every decade of life after 40 years of age. The ageing of the population will 

lead to a doubling of eye disease by the year 2020. Three quarters of visual impairment, 

however, can be prevented or treated. 

There are high costs associated with vision disorders, with an estimated total cost in 

Australia in 2004 of $9.85 billion. Nationally, the direct health costs of treating eye disease 

are estimated at $1.8 billion, more than health spending on diabetes and asthma 

combined. Hospital costs are the largest direct health cost at $692 million with cataract 

the largest single direct health cost condition at $327 million. Indirect costs of visual 

impairment are estimated at $3.2 billion. 

The Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework (the framework) provides a 

planning framework for the delivery of public ophthalmology services in Victoria to the 

year 2016. The framework aims to guide the future provision of care through design of 

the service system, the development of an appropriate workforce to support it, and 

address long-standing and emerging issues for the delivery of ophthalmology services. 

1.1 Background 

The framework has its foundation in recent government policy. The Metropolitan Health 

Strategy, Directions for your health system (MHS), released in October 2003 by the 

Department of Human Services (the department), identifies the need to establish service 

planning frameworks for a range of clinical specialities, including ophthalmology services. 

The MHS also provides directions for specialist hospitals, including the Royal Victorian 

Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH). It recommends that specialist hospitals be collocated or 

affiliated with a general tertiary hospital and that a review and a service plan of the RVEEH 

be undertaken to identify its future role and optimal location. It also recommends that the 

RVEEH continue its role in providing complex care, training and research in ear, nose and 

throat (ENT) services and ophthalmology. 

A number of initiatives are being undertaken by government and non-government 

organisations to prevent avoidable vision loss through strategies to improve awareness of 

eye health and access to services. The Victorian Government has provided funding over 

three years towards the Vision Initiative, which is run by Vision 2020 Australia. There is 

also work underway to develop a National Vision Plan.

2 Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework 

1.2 Methodology 

To inform the development of the framework, the department undertook broad 

stakeholder consultation, which included: 

• establishing an Ophthalmology Service Planning Advisory Committee with 

representation from key stakeholder groups 

• widely circulating the Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework discussion 

paper and inviting written submissions 

• engaging Phillips Fox Lawyers (Dr Heather Wellington) and Campbell Research 

and Consulting to undertake broad stakeholder consultation through workshops 

and interviews 

• developing a stakeholder consultation report entitled Victorian ophthalmology services: 

report on stakeholder consultations, September 2004. 

For the purposes of this framework, the term ‘ophthalmology services’ has been defined 

to encompass medical and non-medical eye health care and related services provided 

by a range of health care professionals. It includes services provided by specialist and 

sub-specialist ophthalmologists, general practitioners (GPs), orthoptists, optometrists, 

ophthalmic nurses and health care professionals working in emergency departments. 

1.3 Ophthalmology services 

Ophthalmology services are predominantly ambulatory, with a high rate of same day 

surgery and a large proportion of eye disease managed on an outpatient basis. While 

ophthalmology services are generally well distributed across the state, there is a high 

concentration of service provision at the RVEEH, including treating 49 per cent of the 

state’s ophthalmology emergency presentations, 70 per cent of outpatient encounters 

and 42 per cent of public inpatient separations. 

Future changes predicted to have an incremental but important impact on ophthalmology 

service delivery include: more emphasis on preventive models of care; an increase 

in ambulatory/day procedure service provision; a greater focus on multidisciplinary 

collaboration and holistic disease management models; an increase in the need to provide 

consumers with information to assist them in understanding eye disease and expectations 

of outcomes from treatment; and optometry having a major effect on ophthalmology 

practice, resulting from the ability to prescribe Schedule 4 medications. 

The research and consultation process has identified a number of strengths, along 

with a range of issues to be addressed within the current ophthalmology service system. 

While the current system has served Victoria well, addressing some issues promises 

to deliver further improvements, ensuring future demands are met. Strengths of the 

service system in Victoria include: a high level of service provision across the state, when 

compared nationally and internationally; a highly trained and skilled eye care workforce; 

a distributed service system with many public hospitals providing some services; a strong 

track record in service delivery and professional education provided at the RVEEH; 

and research networks of high national and international significance.


1.4 Discussion and recommendations 

Service access 

While waiting times for elective surgery in Victoria compare well to those in other states 

and territories, variations in waiting times to access services create inequity in the service 

system. Factors including variations in referral processes, patient categorisation and 

elective surgery management processes impact on the equity of the service system. 

Outpatient and elective surgery management will benefit with the development and 

adoption of guidelines to inform ophthalmology practices. 

Recommendation 

1. Develop consistent guidelines and practices for accessing public ophthalmology 

outpatient services and elective surgery to ensure that access is equitable, 

appropriate and based on clinical need. 

Barriers for consumers accessing eye care services and low cost glasses 

A lack of eye care literacy, for both consumers and providers, is a recognised barrier to 

accessing eye services. Improving practitioners’ understanding of the roles of different 

eye care professionals, and reducing fragmentation between professional groups, will 

improve referral pathways. Programs under the Vision Initiative are being developed to 

educate both consumers and providers about the roles of different eye care professionals 

and improve consumers eye health literacy. 


2. Improve eye health education and promotion programs for consumers and 

providers through support of the Vision Initiative. 

Affordability has been identified as a barrier to accessing eye care, with considerable 

criticism about the cost of glasses. The cost of glasses acts as a deterrent for many who 

need eye care and corrective lenses. The government-funded Victorian Eyecare Service 

(VES), which provides low cost glasses to concession card holders and their children 

under 18 years of age, makes a significant contribution towards accessing low cost 

glasses. Certain population groups, however, still face difficulties accessing eye care 

services. It was noted that a greater proportion of rural residents access the VES 

than metropolitan residents. 


3. Improve and promote access to low cost glasses.


Access 

While ophthalmology services are well distributed across the state, a strategic approach 

to service distribution which takes demographic changes in to account is an important 

part of delivering a high quality and equitable health service. Some health services 

have stopped directly providing elective ophthalmology services and while these health 

services have developed linkages with other health services to varying degrees, it is 

important that these closures do not reduce access to services in geographic areas. 

Self-sufficiency is a measure of the degree to which people can access services close 

to home. Self sufficiency varies across the state, with 99.7 per cent of metropolitan 

residents who received ophthalmology inpatient services receiving these within 

metropolitan Melbourne, while 77 per cent of rural residents received services within 

rural Victoria in 2002–03. The Hume and Gippsland regions were the least self-sufficient 

at 60 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. 

There is a strong view amongst stakeholders that all major metropolitan and regional 

hospitals should have a full range of primary and secondary services, including nonadmitted 

consulting, emergency and surgical services. Establishing primary and 

secondary services in all public general tertiary hospitals will increase local access 

to services and reduce the need for referral to other health services for care. 

There is a role for both large and small rural health services in providing ophthalmology 

services. The challenge is to ensure that services are planned and delivered in a 

coordinated way within a region or sub region. 

Paediatric services 

Children aged 0 to 14 years constitute only a small proportion of ophthalmology services. 

Nearly 4 per cent of ophthalmology separations and over 5 per cent of ophthalmology 

Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims were for children in 2002-03. Paediatric 

inpatient services are concentrated centrally, with the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) 

treating 37 per cent and the RVEEH treating 16 per cent in 2002–03. Due to the specialist 

requirements for treating paediatric patients, there is strong support for the RCH to 

continue its role as the key provider of public specialist paediatric ophthalmology services.



4. The following health services should ensure the provision of primary and secondary 

services for their tertiary campuses, including 24-hour on call, inpatient, outpatient 

and emergency consulting and surgery: 

• Metropolitan 

– RVEEH 

– Western Health 

– Northern Health 

– Melbourne Health 

– Austin Health 

– Eastern Health 

– Bayside Health 

– Southern Health 

– Peninsula Health 

• Rural and regional 

The implications for the five major regional hospitals to provide the range 

of services specified above will need to be considered in detail. Regional 

hospitals will play an important role in the provision and coordination of 

services across their region. 

Elective surgery may be provided in alternate settings to the tertiary site or regional 

hospital, such as in same day and elective surgery centres or other rural hospitals. 

The Royal Children’s Hospital should continue its role in specialist provision 

of paediatric ophthalmology services. 

A distributed service system should be maintained through the provision 

of a range of primary and secondary services at rural hospitals.


Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital 

The majority of stakeholders believe that the RVEEH provides a very good service for 

tertiary patients. For efficiency and quality reasons, there is considerable support for 

maintaining a specialist tertiary hospital with a concentration of highly specialised 

services, possibly collocated with a general tertiary hospital. There is support for the 

maintenance and growth, over time, of integrated services in all metropolitan and regional 

tertiary general hospitals. 

As recommended in the MHS, the RVEEH requires a detailed service plan and review 

to determine its future role and optimal location. The detailed service plan for the RVEEH 

will determine its catchment for primary and secondary services. There is support for the 

RVEEH to continue an active teaching and research role and to assist in ensuring equitable 

service provision across the state, through outreach services and other mechanisms. 


5. The RVEEH should continue its role in teaching, research and specialist provision 

of ophthalmology services. The RVEEH will provide primary and secondary 

services to its local population and provide elective surgical services to a broader 

population. 

Demand for eye services 

Eye disease is forecast to double by the year 2020, which will lead to increased demands 

for eye care services. The Visual Impairment Project (VIP) found that the incidence of 

visual impairment and blindness increases threefold with each decade of age after 40 and 

that the ageing of the population will see the prevalence of eye disease double by 2020. 

Consistent with the VIP, the department’s inpatient forecasts (2003–04) indicate public 

and private ophthalmology separations will grow by 3.4 per cent per annum, and bed 

days will increase by 2.9 per cent per annum to 2016–17. This growth is led by cataract 

procedures with a forecast growth in separations of 4.2 per cent per annum or a doubling 

by 2016–17. 

Models of care and the role of eye care professionals 

Models of care for ophthalmology service have undergone significant changes in the 

past two decades with an increasing trend toward ambulatory care. Ambulatory eye care 

services are provided as a day attendance at a health care facility or at a person’s home. 

Within the context of ambulatory care, the emergence of new ophthalmology models of 

care locally, nationally and internationally, has created debate about the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of these new models. Condition-specific models of care for cataract 

surgery including pre and post operative care, the management of refractive error, and 

the screening for and management of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy have been 

highlighted. Debate relates to where services are provided, whether in hospital 

or community settings, who provides the service, and the clinical care pathway.


There is considerable stakeholder support for high volume elective surgery facilities for 

ophthalmology services. As a large proportion of eye surgery is done on a same day 

basis, significant opportunity exists for further expansion of services without high capital 

investment. The use of dedicated elective theatres enables a critical mass of patients 

to be treated whose procedures will not be cancelled due to priority being given to 

emergency cases from other specialties. 

There are further opportunities to better utilise the skills of the current workforce through 

a reconfiguration of workforce models. There is a general recognition that there is a 

good supply of eye health care professionals with specific ophthalmic training and 

skills, including ophthalmologists, optometrists, orthoptists and ophthalmic nurses. 

Consultations suggest general support for looking at options to make better use of 

medical and non-medical staff in the delivery of eye care. 


6. The following will increase the capacity of the system to provide for future demand: 

• establishment and expansion of services in general tertiary hospitals 

• development and expansion of models of care that promote effective and efficient 

delivery of eye care services 

• increased use of elective surgery centres for ophthalmology surgery (in particular 

cataract surgery) 

• establishment and/or expansion of workforce models that make best use of the 

existing workforce in public hospitals and in community settings (optometrists, 

orthoptists and nurses undertaking greater roles in the provision of eye care). 

Funding 

The cost of service provision varies between hospitals. Through efficiencies in work 

practices or staffing arrangements, some hospitals achieve costs that differ markedly from 

the casemix payment. Salary arrangements for surgeons have been noted as a significant 

factor in whether a hospital is able to deliver the service within the casemix payment, with 

some hospitals providing sessional payments and others fee-for-service. 


7. Develop a funding model that supports the system structure.


Performance monitoring 

A performance monitoring system ensures accountability for the efficient and effective 

use of resources. A performance monitoring system would include a range of clinical 

and non-clinical performance measures that could be monitored at a local, regional 

and statewide level. Ophthalmology management measures, including waiting times for 

elective surgery and activity data, are already collected by health services and reported 

to the department. However, patient outcome measures are not routinely collected by 

health services and require development. Possible performance outcome measures 

would include monitoring the appropriateness, acceptability, safety and effectiveness 

of ophthalmology clinical interventions. 

A performance monitoring system requires meaningful performance measures, data 

collection systems, reporting requirements and mechanisms. The development and 

operation of a performance monitoring system will require the involvement of clinicians, 

professional colleges and associations, hospitals and health services. 


8. Develop a performance monitoring system for ophthalmology management 

and patient outcomes. 

Service leadership and coordination 

Greater statewide coordination and leadership in planning for service growth is needed to 

ensure high quality and accessible ophthalmology services. There is general agreement 

among stakeholders that the department, hospitals and health care professionals have a 

shared interest and responsibility in ensuring optimal use of resources within the system. 

It is recognised that leadership capability needs to be developed with more system-wide 

goal setting and accountability. It was agreed that governance arrangements could be 

instituted at a regional and/or statewide level. There is support for more system-wide 

leadership from the RVEEH. 


9. Develop a capacity for statewide leadership in public ophthalmology service 

provision to provide ongoing direction in models of care, education and support 

systems for service providers.


2 Introduction 

The Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework provides a planning framework for 

the delivery of public ophthalmology services in Victoria to the year 2016. The framework 

aims to guide the future provision of care, both in the design of the service system and the 

development of an appropriate workforce to support it. It aims to address long-standing 

and emerging issues faced when delivering ophthalmology services. 

2.1 Policy context for the future directions 

of ophthalmology services 

The framework has its foundation in government policy that has been developed in recent 

years. In 2001, the Victorian Government released Growing Victoria Together, a statement 

of the Government’s strategies and priorities for the next ten years. In its Departmental 

Plan 2004–05, the Victorian Department of Human Services (the department) established 

objectives that reflect the strategic directions laid down in Growing Victoria Together. 

These objectives include: 

• building sustainable, well managed and efficient human services 

• providing timely and accessible human services 

• improving human service safety and quality 

• promoting least intrusive human service options 

• strengthening the capacity of individuals, families and communities 

• reducing inequalities in health and wellbeing. 

The Metropolitan Health Strategy, Directions for your health system (MHS), released in 

October 2003 by the department, sets the key directions and objectives for metropolitan 

health services over the next five to ten years. A principal objective of the MHS is to 

position the health system to best meet future demand for services while ensuring those 

services are safe, of high quality, responsive to individual needs, and delivered in a timely, 

responsible and efficient manner. 

The MHS identifies four strategic directions to position the health service system 

in Victoria to meet future demand for services. These include: 

• increasing capacity of the current service system 

• redistributing and reconfiguring existing capacity of the service system 

• substituting and diverting existing services to new, more appropriate services 

• developing new service models.


Under the strategic direction of redistributing and reconfiguring capacity, the MHS 

identifis the need to establish service planning frameworks for a range of clinical 

specialities, including ophthalmology services to be a priority. Other directions include: 

• a review and a service plan outlining the future role and optimal location for the 

Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH) 

• specialist hospitals to be collocated or affiliated with a general tertiary hospital 

• the RVEEH to continue its role in providing complex care, training and research 

in ear, nose and throat (ENT) services and ophthalmology. 

The MHS acknowledges the important role of specialist hospitals in training, workforce 

and research. 

The department’s document Metropolitan Health Strategy, Directions for your health 

system: ambulatory care services, 2003 provides direction for ambulatory services. 

Ambulatory care describes care that takes place as a day attendance at a health care 

facility or at the consumer’s home. Directions for ambulatory care are as follows: 

• ambulatory care services should be provided in a community-based setting unless 

considered inappropriate for safety, quality of care and efficiency reasons 

• management processes and models of care should ensure continuity of care across 

hospital and community based settings 

• service practice and distribution should ensure equitable, timely and appropriate access 

• community-based ambulatory services should be collocated and/or integrated with 

hospitals where there are service and patient/client synergies, to improve continuity 

of care, maximise limited staffing resources, reduce professional isolation and enhance 

service organisation and coordination 

• ambulatory services should be planned to meet the specific population health needs of 

a defined geographic catchment area, while maintaining flexibility to respond to changes 

in service demand. 

The Hospital Demand Management (HDM) strategy was established in October 2000 

in response to increases in demand and deterioration in access to acute public hospital 

services. The HDM strategy aims to strengthen the capacity of the health system to 

manage increasing demand pressures in six key ways: 

• funding targeted growth in the activity performed within hospitals 

• substitution through expansion of non-bed-based models of care 

• encouraging clinical practice change to achieve best practice 

• funding the Hospital Admission Risk Program (HARP) to improve health outcomes 

and reduce the avoidable use of hospitals 

• providing improved working conditions that attract and retain nurses 

• expanding opportunities for people to access elective surgery.


This service planning framework for ophthalmology services aims to address issues 

specific to delivering ophthalmology services in Victoria within the context of these 

government policies. 

2.2 Eye care initiatives 

There are a number of initiatives being undertaken by government and non-government 

organisations to prevent avoidable vision loss through strategies to improve awareness 

of eye health and improve access to services. These initiatives include: 

• Vision 2020 Australia 

• the Vision Initiative being implemented in Victoria 

• a National Vision Plan for Australia. 

Vision 2020 Australia was established in 2000 as part of Vision 2020: The Right to Sight, 

an initiative of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency for the 

Prevention of Blindness. Vision 2020: The Right to Sight was established in 1996 and 

aims to eliminate avoidable blindness and vision loss by the year 2020. 

Vision 2020 Australia is a national partnership of more than 40 Australian-based 

organisations involved in eye care service delivery, eye research, education and 

development, low vision support, vision rehabilitation, professional assistance and 

community support. It aims to build strong foundations for a cohesive and collaborative 

public health approach within the eye health sector in Australia, and support the same 

in selected international communities. 

Vision 2020 Australia seeks to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020 and 

ensure that blindness and vision impairment are no longer barriers to full participation in 

the community. In Victoria, the State Government has provided $1.8 million over three 

years towards the Vision Initiative run by Vision 2020 Australia. The Vision Initiative, 

which commenced in 2003, takes a collaborative public health approach to increase 

awareness and education of the public, health professionals, and other sectors about the 

importance of eye care. The program is run in collaboration with eye health care providers, 

researchers and rehabilitation and support services. The goal of the Vision Initiative is: 

To prevent avoidable blindness and to reduce the impact of severe vision loss 

for all Australians. 

The Vision Initiative is currently being implemented in Victoria and is expected to be 

implemented in other states and become a national program. It focuses on the five 

conditions that cause 80 per cent of vision impairment in Australia: 

• uncorrected refractive error 

• cataracts 

• diabetic retinopathy 

• glaucoma 

• age-related macular degeneration.


There is work underway to develop a National Vision Plan for Australia. This work 

commenced following the World Health Assembly resolution WHA56.26 passed in May 

2003 to eliminate avoidable blindness. The resolution calls on WHO member states to: 

• establish a national Vision 2020 plan by 2005 in partnership with the WHO and in 

collaboration with non-government organisations (NGOs) and the private sector 

• establish a national coordinating committee or blindness prevention committee to help 

develop and implement the plan 

• begin implementing the plan by 2007 

• include effective information systems with standardised indicators and periodic 

monitoring and evaluating, aiming to show reduced magnitude of avoidable blindness 

by 2010 in the plan 

• support mobilising resources to eliminate avoidable blindness. 

As part of Australia’s commitment to the WHO Resolution, the Commonwealth 

Government sponsored the inaugural National Vision Forum in March 2004. More than 

85 participants from the eye care and related health sectors attended the forum to 

discuss the development of a National Vision Plan. Forum members agreed to establish 

a task group which would develop a submission outlining the purpose, scope and content 

of a national plan to be submitted to government. 

The task group developed the submission which outlined the collaborative views of 

the community and the eye health sector in relation to the formulation and content of 

a National Vision Plan for Australia. It was presented to the government for inclusion on 

the agenda at the Australian Health Ministers Conference (AHMC) meeting held in July 

2004. The agenda item was passed by AHMC members and the National Vision Plan for 

Australia is being finalised for tabling at AHMC later this year. Discussions are currently 

underway between the Commonwealth and State Government health departments to 

determine strategies for developing and implementing a national plan. 

A key strategy towards achieving a National Vision Plan for Australia is the national 

implementation of the Vision Initiative. The Vision Initiative is seen as a benchmark for 

public eye health programs and discussions are currently underway between Vision 

2020 partners, stakeholders and other State Governments for similar programs to be 

implemented in other states. 

These initiatives provide strong support for enhancing the delivery of ophthalmology 

services in Victoria.


2.3 Methodology 

To inform the development of the framework, the department: 

• established an Ophthalmology Service Planning Advisory Committee (the advisory 

committee) with representation from key stakeholder groups (membership of the 

advisory committee is in Appendix 1) 

• developed terms of reference in consultation with the advisory committee 

(refer Appendix 2) 

• developed and widely circulated the Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework 

discussion paper (the discussion paper) and invited written submissions 

• undertook broad stakeholder consultation. 

The discussion paper provided a basis for analysis and consideration of current 

ophthalmology service provision and related services in Victoria. It drew on the views 

of stakeholders, analysis of datasets and a review of the literature. Its aim was to 

identify and discuss the key current and future issues that effect ophthalmology 

practice in Victoria. 

The discussion paper was widely circulated to stakeholders and 49 submissions were 

received. A list of individuals and organisations that responded to the discussion paper 

is included in Appendix 3. 

The department contracted Phillips Fox Lawyers (Dr Heather Wellington) and Campbell 

Research and Consulting to undertake the stakeholder consultation. To determine 

stakeholder views on issues pertinent to the delivery of ophthalmology services, the 

consultants reviewed stakeholder feedback on the discussion paper and engaged key 

stakeholders through a series of workshops and face-to-face interviews. 

Stakeholder views were elicited through: 

• a review and analysis of responses to the department’s discussion paper 

• five forums, three in rural areas and two in metropolitan areas, with a range of service 

providers 

• one forum with consumer representative groups 

• two forums (one metropolitan and one rural) with consumers 

• a number of face-to-face interviews with individual providers and small groups. 

Data from stakeholder consultations and submissions were collated by the consultants 

and presented back to the department in a report entitled Victorian ophthalmology 

services: report on stakeholder consultations, September 2004. A list of individuals 

and groups who participated in interviews and workshops is included in Appendix 4.


2.4 Report structure 

Section 3 of this report is presented in the structure developed by the Victorian Quality 

Council, Better quality, better health care: a safety and quality improvement framework 

for Victorian health services (VQC, 2003). 

The safety and quality framework document was developed as a component of a 

strategic approach to improving the safety and quality of patient care in Victoria. While it 

has been developed for application by health services rather than across a health system, 

it identifies six dimensions of quality - safety, effectiveness, appropriateness, acceptability, 

access and efficiency - and four key organisational elements - governance and leadership, 

consumer involvement, competence and education, and information management - 

which are important considerations when ensuring a safe and high quality health system. 

These are equally applicable to system-wide safety and quality of care. Definitions of the 

six dimensions of quality and four key organisational elements are provided in Appendix 5. 

2.5 Scope and definitions 

Eye care professionals 

In this framework, the term ‘ophthalmology services’ has been interpreted to encompass 

medical and non-medical eye health care and related services provided by a range of 

health care professionals. It includes services provided by specialist and sub-specialist 

ophthalmologists, general practitioners (GPs), orthoptists, optometrists, ophthalmic 

nurses and health care professionals working in emergency department settings. 

Definitions of these professions are provided in Table 1.


Table 1: Eye care professionals 

Ophthalmologist 

An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor who is educated, trained and registered to 

provide total care of the eyes, from performing comprehensive eye examinations 

to prescribing corrective lenses, diagnosing diseases and disorders of the eye, and 

carrying out the medical and surgical procedures necessary for their treatment. 

General practitioner (GP) 

A GP is a registered medical practitioner who is qualified and competent for general 

practice in Australia. A GP: 

• has the skills and experience to provide whole person, comprehensive, 

coordinated and continuing medical care 

• maintains professional competence for general practice. 

Optometrist 

Optometrists are non-medical practitioners trained to assess the eye and the 

visual system, and diagnose refractive disorders and eye disease. An optometrist 

prescribes and dispenses corrective and preventative devices and works with 

other eye care professionals to ensure that patients are referred appropriately for 

diagnostic and therapeutic needs. Optometrists also prescribe drugs for certain 

eye conditions and monitor long-term eye conditions. 

Orthoptist 

Orthoptists specialise in diagnosing and managing disorders of eye movements 

and associated vision problems. They perform investigative procedures appropriate 

to disorders of the eye and visual system and assist with rehabilitating patients with 

vision loss. Orthoptists also diagnose refractive disorders and prescribe glasses on 

referral from an ophthalmologist or optometrist. 

Ophthalmic nurse 

An ophthalmic nurse has completed general nurse training then additional training 

to specialise in the nursing care of patients who have eye problems, whether they 

are in hospital, clinics or the community. Ophthalmic nurses test vision and perform 

other eye tests under medical direction. 

(NSW Health, 2002; AMWAC, 2000; RACGP, 2002)


Ophthalmology service system 

During the consultation, the ophthalmology service system was conceptualised 

according to primary, secondary and tertiary service delivery (Table 2). 

Table 2: Definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary eye care 

Primary care 

Primary care is characterised as care provided following self-referral. It includes care 

provided by community optometrists, GPs and hospital emergency departments for 

conditions such as refractive error, screening for eye health, monitoring of chronic 

eye conditions, removing foreign bodies and managing conjunctivitis. 

Secondary care 

Secondary care is characterised as specialist care provided following referral from 

another practitioner, but not including highly specialised care which, because of 

cost, quality or technical issues, is best provided from a small number of service 

sites. It includes most ophthalmic surgical and medical services (including 

monitoring and management of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic eye disease and 

macular degeneration, management of most eye trauma, and optometry services 

provided on referral from another practitioner). 

Tertiary care 

Tertiary care is characterised as highly specialised care provided in a limited number 

of locations following referral from another practitioner. It includes monitoring and 

managing complicated glaucoma, diabetic eye disease, trauma and complicated 

and/or rare vitreo-retinal and other conditions. 

This framework is primarily focused on the provision of services funded and/or provided 

by the public sector. Issues are, however, discussed in the context of the public sector 

as a component of an overall service system that has a substantial private component.


3 Ophthalmology services in Victoria 

3.1 Geographic distribution of services 

The department has divided the state into eight regions—five rural and three metropolitan. 

The regional boundaries are based on Local Government Areas (LGAs). Figure 1 illustrates 

metropolitan regions and the location of public hospitals. Figure 2 illustrates rural regions 

and the locations of public hospitals. 

Figure 1: Metropolitan regions and the location of public hospitals


Figure 2: Rural regions and the location of public hospitals


3.2 Current service provision 

The distribution and activity of ophthalmology services in Victoria is described in the 

discussion paper. Some key activity data for ophthalmology service provision in 2002–03 

indicate that: 

• ophthalmology services are predominantly ambulatory with a large proportion of eye 

disease managed on an outpatient basis and a high rate of same day surgery 

• while ophthalmology services are generally well distributed across the state, there is 

a high concentration of service provision at the RVEEH. The RVEEH treats 49 per cent 

of ophthalmology emergency presentations, 70 per cent of outpatient encounters and 

42 per cent of public inpatient separations 

• the majority of consulting services are provided in private ophthalmology and 

optometric practices 

• of all encounters with GPs, 1.8 per cent relate specifically to eye conditions; 7.3 per cent 

of referrals from GPs are to ophthalmologists and 0.9 per cent are to optometrists 

• there were 49,700 ophthalmology inpatient separations, at 102 public hospitals and 

76 private hospitals. Twenty-two per cent were from rural hospitals, while the RVEEH 

treated 19 per cent of all separations 

• there has been a 5.9 per cent per annum increase in ophthalmology separations from 

1998–99 to 2002–03. There was 7.9 per cent per annum growth in the rural sector 

and 5.4 per cent per annum in the metropolitan sector. The growth rate in the private 

hospitals was 8.1 per cent per annum compared to 3.4 per cent in public hospitals 

• high growth rates were recorded in outer metropolitan hospitals for inpatient 

separations and emergency presentations 

• overall, approximately 30 per cent of ophthalmology separations from public hospitals 

are from private or compensable patients 

• the Victorian Eyecare Scheme (VES) provides eye tests and glasses at a nominal cost 

for Victorians who hold a pensioner concession card or have a health care card and 

their dependents. The VES is funded through the department and is run by the Victorian 

College of Optometry (VCO). VES provided 35,256 services in metropolitan Melbourne 

and 29,180 services in rural Victoria.


Table 3: Summary of Victorian ophthalmology service provision in 2002–03 

Inpatient separations 

• 49,700 separations statewide 

– 70 per cent cataract procedures 

– 84 per cent same day 

– 96 per cent elective 

– 22,031 separations at public hospitals 

Non-admitted services 

• 91,480 outpatient encounters provided by 12 public hospitals 

• 35,001 emergency presentations to 35 public hospitals 

• 660,507 ophthalmology MBS claims 1 

– 513,105 consultations 

• 1,078,180 optometry MBS claims 

1 MBS data provided from the 

HIC. Data includes claims for 

private inpatient procedures 

captured in VAED. 

3.3 Predicted changes to ophthalmology services 

The research and consultation process identified that the following incremental 

changes in ophthalmology services are expected, including: 

• more emphasis on preventive models of care 

• an increase in ambulatory/day procedure service provision 

• a greater focus on multidisciplinary collaboration and holistic disease management 

models 

• an increase in the need to provide consumers with information to assist them 

understand eye disease and expectations of outcomes from treatment 

• optometry having a major effect on ophthalmology practice, in particular on glaucoma, 

resulting from the ability of optometrists to prescribe S4 medications 

• increased use of highly specialised equipment for both diagnostic and therapeutic 

purposes 

• new prostheses, which could improve outcomes and increase demand for the 

surgical correction of presbyopia 

• more targeted drug therapies 

• an increasing role for molecular engineering techniques and stem cell technology 

• an increase in the ability to correctly diagnose genetic diseases and provide accurate 

counselling information on prognosis and the recurrence risk.


4 Discussion and recommendations 

The research and consultation process identified a number of strengths, along with 

a range of issues to be addressed within the current ophthalmology service system. 

While the current system has served Victoria well, addressing some issues promises 

to deliver further improvements, ensuring future demands are met. These issues will 

be discussed in more detail throughout the following sections. 

4.1 Access 

‘Access refers to the extent to which a population or individual can obtain 

health services. This may include when it is appropriate to seek health 

care and the ability to geographically, physically and economically seek out 

appropriate care’ (VQC, 2003). 

Waiting times for services, along with cost and self-sufficiency, are often equated with 

the accessibility of a health service. 

Waiting times for services 

Victoria manages ophthalmology elective surgery well compared to other Australian states 

and territories. Data reported by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 

indicates that Victoria has the one of the lowest proportions of patients waiting more than 

12 months for surgery in Australia (Table 4). 

Despite these comparisons, waiting times have been identified as a barrier to accessing 

public ophthalmology services. In particular, variations in waiting times between 

organisations has created inequity in access across the state. 

Table 4: Ophthalmology and cataract surgery waiting list statistics– 

Australian states and territories, 2001–02 (AIHW) 

Ophthalmology 

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT Total 

Admissions 19,064 13,854 7,313 4,789 3,741 645 720 694 50,820 

Days waited at 50th percentile 98 37 26 88 42 154 82 160 57 


Proportion waited > 12 mths 19.0 4.3 12.9 5.8 4.3 36.3 27.1 5.5 11.9 

Cataract extraction 

Admissions 14,345 9,232 4,567 3,503 2,431 394 615 487 35,574 



Proportion waited > 12 mths 24.1 5.1 16.8 5.2 5.9 56.6 31.2 6.4 15.4


Outpatient services 

Outpatient services in public acute hospitals play a key role in the health system and 

represent a vital interface between inpatient and community care (Sharwood & O’Connell, 

2001). They provide specialist medical services, pre and post hospital care, and other 

medical and allied health services. 

Long waiting times for initial outpatient consultation has been identified as a key barrier 

to accessing public services. While there are no routine collections of waiting times for 

outpatient appointments, a survey of Victorian hospitals that provide public ophthalmology 

services in January 2004, revealed variation in the average waiting times for non-urgent 

ophthalmology appointments from five weeks to 42 weeks, with some patients waiting 

over two years for non-urgent appointments. 

Many providers suggested that current outpatient waiting times at some public hospitals 

are unacceptable. Suggestions for acceptable waiting times for non-urgent outpatient 

appointments ranged from four weeks to three months. 

There is a view amongst providers that there is too much system-wide emphasis on 

cataract surgery to the detriment of some rare and treatable diseases. There were 

concerns that patients with cataract may wait less time for cataract surgery than people 

with other more serious conditions who require services provided in the outpatient setting. 

Elective surgery 

Access to public hospital elective surgery in Victoria is monitored through the 

Elective Surgery Information System (ESIS). ESIS information is not collected for 

small rural hospitals. 

Patients added to an elective surgery list are assigned a clinical urgency category. 

Specialists assess the clinical urgency of their patient’s condition and categorise it as 

one of three levels. These categories have been developed through the department’s 

HDM strategy and are defined below. A summary of elective surgery waiting times is 

provided in Table 5. 

Category 1 (urgent): A condition that has the potential to deteriorate quickly to the point 

that it may become an emergency. Admission is desirable within 30 days. 

Category 2 (semi urgent): A condition causing some pain, dysfunction or disability but 

which is not likely to deteriorate quickly or become an emergency. Admission is desirable 

within 90 days. 

Category 3 (non urgent): A condition causing minimal or no pain, dysfunction or 

disability, which is unlikely to deteriorate quickly and which does not have the potential 

to become an emergency. Admission is acceptable sometime in the future.


Table 5: Elective surgery waiting list (ESIS, 30 April 2004) 

• 3,816 patients on ophthalmology surgical waiting lists: 

– 3,295 category 3 patients 

– 496 category 2 patients 

– 25 category 1 patients. 

• 2,772 patients (84 per cent of total waiting list) were waiting for cataract surgery 

• Average patient waiting times ranging between: 

– 26 and 245 days for category 3 (non-urgent) 

– 20 and 79 days for category 2 (semi-urgent). 

• 39 (8 per cent) category 2 patients and 150 (5 per cent) category 3 patients were 

waiting longer than clinically recommended. 

• Average clearance times for cataract surgery of 1.9 months for category 2 patients 

and 6.4 months for category 3 patients. 

The majority of ophthalmology elective surgery is classified as category 3. Some 

inconsistencies in categorisation have been noted across health services, which may 

contribute to variations in waiting times for elective surgery. 

Some providers suggested during the consultations that current surgical waiting times in 

Victoria are generally ‘not too bad’ and in some areas have improved significantly in recent 

years. Although surgical waiting times for public patients are generally acceptable, when 

combined with waiting times for outpatient appointments overall, waiting times in some 

major metropolitan and regional hospitals are considered to be excessive. 

Suggestions by providers for acceptable waiting times for non-urgent surgery varied, with 

lengths of up to 18 months considered acceptable if there is a triage system to expedite 

urgent patients. Providers advised that in some cases patients are put on the waiting list 

earlier than the clinical condition would indicate, in anticipation of a long wait for surgery. 

Consumers cited examples of waiting times of three or four months and generally 

considered them reasonable for access to treatment in the public system. Consumers 

perceived, however, that waiting times in the public system varied considerably depending 

on the specialist seen and the facility where the treatment is provided. 

The Cranbourne Integrated Care Centre (CICC) at Southern Health commenced delivery 

of ophthalmology service in 2002 and was established as a designated ophthalmology 

Elective Surgery Access Service (ESAS) provider. ESAS aims to assist semi-urgent 

(Category 2) elective surgery patients with prolonged waiting times receive care.


Long waiting patients with little prospect of receiving treatment within their own hospital 

in the immediate future are offered the opportunity of surgery at another hospital. As 

an ESAS hospital, the CICC received additional funding to treat same day, low risk, long 

waiting patients from other hospitals. In 2003–04, CICC treated long waiting patients 

from Frankston Hospital, Ballarat Health Services and The Alfred Hospital, which has 

significantly reduced waiting times at these hospitals. 

Elective surgery management and referral 

Elective surgery management practices can impact on access to elective surgery. 

This not only relates to differences in waiting times for elective surgery but also systems 

for accessing elective surgery. For example, some patients are referred to outpatient 

clinics for assessment prior to being placed on elective surgery lists while others are 

referred directly onto public elective surgery lists from private surgeons’ rooms, bypassing 

the need for outpatient appointments. Direct referral from private rooms to public hospital 

elective surgery lists is common for private patients, and for public patients in rural 

hospitals where there are few public outpatient clinics. Direct referral has been introduced 

for public patients at some hospitals, such as those at Southern Health, including CICC. 

Some medical practitioners expressed confusion over their indemnity for patients they 

refer directly on to public elective surgery waiting lists. The Public Healthcare Insurance 

Program, Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA), provides medical indemnity 

insurance coverage to medical practitioners who refer patients on to elective surgery 

waiting lists at public hospitals, provided a series of conditions are met. 

(see www.health.vic.gov.au/electivesurgery for more information, and a full list 

of conditions of indemnity). 

In 2002–03, 70 per cent of ophthalmology inpatient separations in public hospitals were 

treated as public patients and 24 per cent were treated as private patients. Between 

1998–99 and 2002–03, the number of public ophthalmology inpatients treated in public 

hospitals grew 4.0 per cent per annum while private patients treated in public hospitals 

grew 5.6 per cent per annum. 

Table 6: Inpatient separations by account type 1998–99 to 2002–03 

Separations 

Account type 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Per cent % pa growth 

Compensable 214 196 233 216 213 1% -0.1% 

DVA* 1,445 1,344 986 965 876 4% -11.8% 

Ineligible 31 34 33 29 57 0% 16.4% 

Private 4,334 4,338 4,501 5,261 5,394 24% 5.6% 

Public 13,222 13,601 13,963 14,340 15,491 70% 4.0% 

Total 19,246 19,513 19,716 20,811 22,031 100% 3.4% 

*Department of Veterans’ Affairs


According to providers, many regional and some metropolitan hospitals have limited 

their volume of public ophthalmology surgery because of concerns about its financial 

sustainability. Excess theatre capacity is often made available for treating private patients, 

many of whom are self-funding. Waiting times for private patients in these hospitals are 

often significantly less than waiting times for public patients. 

Some health service managers are concerned about equity of access. They consider that 

public facilities should be available solely on the basis of clinical need rather than capacity 

to pay, whereas others consider that the admission of higher numbers of private patients 

ensures the sustainability of the service. Larger numbers of private patients allow a better 

use of facilities and assists in the retention of ophthalmologists, for whom public operating 

is relatively financially unrewarding, compared to private practice. 

In many rural hospitals, public and private elective surgery lists are managed by individual 

ophthalmologists without the hospital’s direct involvement. It was suggested by some 

health service managers that there needs to be a more transparent arrangement for treating 

public and private patients in the public hospital sector. 

The introduction of outpatient and elective surgery management guidelines aim to ensure 

consistency in elective surgery management regardless of who manages the elective 

surgery waiting lists. 

Prioritisation 

There have been attempts internationally to develop prioritisation systems for managing 

elective surgical and medical waiting lists, including waiting lists for cataract surgery. 

These include the Western Canada Waiting List Project (www.wcwl.org) and the Clinical 

Priority Assessment Criteria (CPAC) developed by the New Zealand National Advisory 

Committee on Health and Disability (Derret et al, 2003). Evaluation of these systems 

showed that while they had some limitations, they also had significant face validity 

and potential to be used in clinical settings (WCWL, 2001; Derret et al, 2003). 

During the consultations, the utility of these prioritisation tools was questioned. 

Many clinicians expressed a belief that decisions about intervention should be left entirely 

to the ophthalmologist, in conjunction with the patient. 

Others strongly supported consideration of a more explicit and transparent prioritisation 

system, such as the VF-14. The VF-14 is a widely internationally adopted instrument used 

in the assessment of visual function. The VF-14 has a high internal consistency and is a 

reliable and valid instrument providing information not conveyed by visual acuity or general 

health status measures (Steinberg, 1995; Alonso et al 1997). There is some interest by 

providers to prioritise elective surgery according to functional impairment.


To ensure equitable and appropriate access to public outpatient services and elective 

surgery, the department has developed two elective surgery management policies which 

outline how elective surgery waiting lists are to be managed. These documents are called 

Elective Surgery Waiting List Referral Policy and Elective Surgery Access Policy and are 

available online at www.health.vic.gov.au/elective surgery. 


1. Develop consistent guidelines and practices for accessing public ophthalmology 

outpatient services and elective surgery to ensure that access is equitable, 

appropriate and based on clinical need. 

Eye care literacy 

Access to information about a particular condition is important in any high quality health 

care system as it empowers the patient and carer to make well informed decisions about 

their health and course of treatment. Access to information also enables consumers to 

gain a better understanding of the role of different health care professionals and to seek 

appropriate care pathways. 

Stakeholders suggested that current eye care information was not reaching as many 

people as it should be. Evidence suggests that many people on low incomes do not 

prioritise eye care and are unaware of the benefits of a regular eye examination. Moreover, 

many patients, particularly the elderly, were said to be unaware that their vision is capable 

of correction, or do not want correction. Inadequate monitoring of conditions such as 

diabetes, reflects a lack of patient awareness of the need for services, or poor referral 

practices, rather than a lack of available services. 

Consumer consultation also confirmed that consumers generally have only a vague 

understanding of the distinction between the roles and responsibilities of various 

ophthalmology professionals and ophthalmology support services. This situation was 

reinforced by the experiences and perceptions of consumer representatives: 

‘A lot of the consumers get confused what people’s roles are. They get 

conflicting messages…’ 

Consumers, however, were more able to identify the functions performed by optometrists 

than those of other eye professionals. 

Through improving access to, and promotion of, eye care information, consumers will be 

able to make more informed decisions about their health. The Vision Initiative is an eye 

health promotion and education program that aims to reduce the incidence of preventable 

blindness and the impact of severe vision loss.


Referral pathways 

Just as it is important for patients to understand their condition so they can make informed 

decisions and seek appropriate care pathways, it is important that health professionals 

understand the roles of other health professionals and services available so that they can 

make the most appropriate referrals. 

Concerns were raised about variations in referral pathways and the appropriateness 

of some referrals by eye care professionals. For example, some patients are referred 

to tertiary public hospitals for refraction and routine eye examinations rather than to 

community providers such as optometrists and the VES. 

Variations in referral pathways were suggested to be due to a lack of understanding of the 

roles of different eye care professionals by other health care professionals and consumers, 

and the fragmentation between certain professional groups. The fragmentation was seen 

to be due to inherent professional boundaries and traditional factors. 

Referral to low vision services was also highlighted as an issue. Low vision services aim 

to optimise vision and provide aids and assistance to improve quality of life to people with 

permanent low vision. Providers believe that improved referral to low vision services is 

required, given that utilisation rates for low vision services are universally low. Estimates 

indicate that between only 5–10 per cent of people with low vision use low vision services 

(Pollard et al, 2003). This concern was echoed by consumers who, in general, believe 

that ophthalmologists (and, to a lesser extent optometrists) have a narrow perspective on 

treatment options for people diagnosed with eye conditions, especially those conditions 

which are ongoing or incurable. 

Other barriers to accessing low vision services identified in the literature include 

awareness of services among the general public and eye health professionals, 

understanding of low vision and the services available, acceptance of low vision, the 

referral process, and transport (Pollard et al, 2003). Education, pre-admission clinics and 

evidence-based guidelines are methods to increase appropriate referrals. These methods 

are supported by stakeholders, and work is already being done by the Vision Initiative to 

educate eye health professionals to promote best practice. 


2. Improve eye health education and promotion programs for consumers 

and providers through support of the Vision Initiative.


Cost of eye care services 

Affordability of ophthalmology services has been identified as a significant barrier in 

both metropolitan and rural Victoria. While ophthalmology services are generally well 

geographically distributed, not all public hospitals provide ophthalmology services. 

For some patients, especially those in rural Victoria, the only options to access 

ophthalmology services include visiting a private provider, or travelling to Melbourne 

or another rural area to access treatment at a public facility. 

While the affordability of private services is a concern, some providers reported positive 

experiences with private clinics collocated with public hospitals: 

‘In public hospitals where the initial entry point is a collocated private clinic, 

an appointment can be arranged over the phone and there is usually a written 

response from the ophthalmologist once they have seen the patient. The 

disadvantage is if the collocated private clinic does not bulk bill pensioners. 

There do not seem to be any disadvantages in terms of surgical outcomes. 

Further consideration of the public/private collaborations in public health 

care may have some benefits.’ 

Some private ophthalmology clinics collocated with public hospitals have equipment 

and infrastructure provided by the hospital, in return for treating public patients with 

no out of pocket expenses. 

A report by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Seeing clearly: Access to affordable 

eyecare for low income Victorians (Diviney & Lillywhite, 2004), found that where public 

ophthalmology services were available, long waiting times for initial consultations were 

considered a barrier to access. In areas such as Shepparton, with no public provision 

of eye surgery, patients choose between paying for private surgery or travelling to 

Melbourne or another rural hospital to access treatment at a public facility. 

As well as the barriers to accessing public eye care services, there was considerable 

criticism by consumers and consumer representatives about the cost of glasses and other 

visual aids. Consumer representatives with experience of lower socioeconomic patients 

were strongly critical of the costs associated with prescription glasses, claiming it acted 

as a serious deterrent for many who needed corrective lenses. This was reinforced by 

consumers who admitted deferring visits to the optometrist, even knowing their eye sight 

was deteriorating, because they could not afford new glasses. 

The VES provides eye tests and glasses at a nominal cost for Victorians who hold a 

pensioner concession card (or have a health care card for at least six months) and their 

dependants under the age of 18 years. The VES is funded by the department and is run 

by the VCO. Rural patients can have their eyes tested and glasses prescribed through 

a network of optometrists and ophthalmologists participating in the service. The RVEEH 

and RCH also provide subsidised glasses to their patients.


Research conducted by the Brotherhood of St Laurence indicates that the VES is making 

a significant contribution towards ensuring low income earners are able to access 

affordable eye care, but that certain groups of low income and socially disadvantaged 

people still face difficulties accessing these services (Diviney & Lillywhite, 2004). 

Victorians who have low uptake of services were reported to include those living in 

supported residential services and aged care facilities, homeless people, rural residents, 

young people and culturally and linguistically diverse communities, particularly newly 

arrived migrants and refugees. 

Data from the VES for 2002–03 showed that a greater proportion of rural residents access 

the VES than metropolitan residents with 35,256 services provided in metropolitan 

Melbourne and 29,180 services provided in rural Victoria. 

Specific concerns regarding the provision of spectacles through the VES include: 

• perceived and actual waiting times for outpatient consultation 

• eligibility for the scheme 

• limited selection of glasses 

• withdrawal of some practices in rural areas because of perceived excessive bureaucracy 

and opportunity costs 

• lack of promotion of the VES by participating optometrists due to a lack of incentive. 

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) provides a comprehensive range of optical 

services, including a range of frames and lenses at no cost for veterans and war widows. 

In the 2005–06 budget, the Victorian Government announced an additional $334,000 

to expand the capacity of VES to provide glasses at low cost to pensioners and other low 

income earners. This funding will provide eye care and subsidise glasses for 3000 extra 

clients. An further $250,000 was allocated to develop a new service model that will target 

eye care in aged care, disability accommodation and supported residential services. 

A review of VES services will be undertaken in 2005 which will consider the service 

model, linkages to other elements of the public eye care service system and future 

demand. The review will provide recommendations with regard to the future extension 

of eye care services. 

It was proposed that opportunities to provide of low cost glasses to patients following 

ophthalmology care, in particular cataract surgery, be reviewed. The VES was suggested 

as a possible provider, however this would need to take into account the potential impact 

on overall demand for services. Improved linkages between the VCO and the RVEEH 

were also suggested to increase access to low cost glasses. Opportunities such as 

improving access to services in metropolitan areas, improved awareness of the service 

and developing more streamlined processes for consumers and providers were also 

highlighted. 


3. Improve and promote access to low cost glasses.


Service distribution 

Ophthalmology services are well distributed with ophthalmology inpatient separations 

reported through the VAED by 102 public hospitals and 76 private hospitals. Appendix 6 

provides details of ophthalmology service provision across Victorian public hospitals in 

2002–03. Cataract procedures were performed at 46 public hospitals, 21 metropolitan 

and 25 rural. 

Twelve Victorian hospitals, nine metropolitan and three rural, provide publicly funded 

outpatient services through the Victorian Ambulatory Classification System (VACS). 

Public outpatient services are concentrated centrally with 70 per cent of the state’s 

services provided at the RVEEH. Statewide ophthalmology VACS encounters have 

increased 2.2 per cent per annum between 1998–99 and 2002–03 (9 per cent in total). 

Self-sufficiency measures the degree to which people can access services close to 

home, and is an indicator of service distribution. Self-sufficiency varies across that state 

with 99.7 per cent of metropolitan residents receiving inpatient ophthalmology services 

in metropolitan Melbourne and 77 per cent of rural residents receiving services in rural 

Victoria in 2002–03. 

Despite having a well-distributed system, some large general metropolitan and rural 

hospitals have discontinued or limited their ophthalmology services in favour of developing 

linkages with other providers. Establishing primary and secondary services in all public 

general tertiary hospitals will increase local access to services and reduce the need for 

referral to other health services for care. This is particularly relevant to rural residents who 

often have long travel times and costs if required to travel to Melbourne. 

Broader distribution of services will ensure a greater presence of ophthalmologists 

in general tertiary hospitals to provide integrated and timely care for persons with 

multi-system conditions, such as diabetes, neurological and neurosurgical conditions, 

neonatology and trauma. A greater presence of ophthalmologists in general hospitals 

will improve educational opportunities in eye health for students and health care 

professionals. 

Metropolitan services 

Most public metropolitan health services provide access to a range of ophthalmology 

services. The largest providers of inpatient separations in 2002–03 were the RVEEH 

(9,322 separations), CICC (1,800 separations) and the RCH (731 separations). 

There are several large metropolitan public hospitals that have ceased directly providing 

a full range of ophthalmology services and have developed partnerships with other health 

services for service provision instead. These include St Vincent’s Health, Eastern Health 

and Peninsula Health. 

St. Vincent’s Health ceased providing ophthalmology services directly in 1997. Instead, 

St Vincent’s Health has developed a strong collaborative arrangement with the RVEEH, 

whereby the RVEEH provides eye services to St Vincent’s Health patients and St Vincent’s 

Health provides some clinical support services to RVEEH.


Eastern Health ceased providing ophthalmology services at Box Hill Hospital in 

1998–99 and established a service at the Maroondah Hospital through a hub and spoke 

arrangement with the RVEEH. This was established in 1998 when both hospitals were part 

of the Inner and Eastern Health Care Network. Box Hill Hospital currently operates a small 

non-VACS funded outpatient clinic. 

Peninsula Health ceased providing public outpatient services at Frankston Hospital 

in 2000–01. In 2003 Peninsula Health transferred its elective surgery from Frankston 

Hospital to the CICC at Southern Health, with complex cases and those requiring 

overnight or multiday stay treated at the Monash Medical Centre, Moorabbin campus. 

The ophthalmologists appointed at Peninsula Health continue to provide an on-call 

emergency consulting service, inpatient consultation, neonatal checks and service 

the multidisciplinary diabetic clinics. 

Public outpatient services are concentrated in metropolitan Melbourne with 95 per cent 

of the state’s outpatient encounters provided in nine metropolitan hospitals in 2002-03. 

There are no VACS funded outpatient clinics in western metropolitan areas. 

Several hospitals provide outpatient services through collocated private clinics or a 

mix of private and publicly funded clinics. Examples include the Western Hospital, the 

Northern Hospital and the RVEEH’s spoke service at Broadmeadows Health Service. 

Data for clinics that are not state-funded are not collected at a state level. 

The majority of providers agreed that a range of specialist ophthalmology services 

including emergency, consulting and surgical should be locally accessible in all general 

metropolitan hospitals. However, there were some providers who favour centralising 

services to a smaller number of metropolitan centres for volume, quality and efficiency 

reasons, with only emergency consulting services being provided at other general 

metropolitan hospitals. 

Those who favour providing integrated services at a more local level advised that staff 

would not be attracted to general hospitals if they did not have the opportunity to provide 

a range of consulting and surgical services. They consider elective surgical services to be 

essential to attracting ophthalmologists to provide other medical and emergency services. 

Rural services 

Self-sufficiency in metropolitan areas is high, however there is variable self-sufficiency in 

rural Victoria. The Hume and Gippsland regions were the least self-sufficient at 60 per cent 

and 63 per cent respectively. Self-sufficiency for rural regions is summarised below: 

• 60 per cent for Hume residents (62 per cent treated in rural Victoria) 

• 63 per cent for Gippsland residents (63 per cent treated in rural Victoria) 

• 71 per cent for Loddon-Mallee (79 per cent treated in rural Victoria) 

• 76 per cent for Grampians (82 per cent treated in rural Victoria) 

• 90 per cent for Barwon South Western (91 per cent treated in rural Victoria)


Most regional centres provide a range of ophthalmology services, and some visiting 

surgical services are also available in a range of sub-regional and small rural hospitals. 

In 2002–03, 20 rural hospitals treated more than 100 ophthalmology separations each. 

Four regional centres provided a total of 2,300 ophthalmology inpatient separations 

or 39 per cent of all rural separations. These included Barwon Health (985 separations), 

Ballarat Health Services (479 separations), Latrobe Regional Hospital (433 separations) 

and Bendigo Health Care Group (403 separations). 

The largest providers of inpatient separations outside regional centres were the New 

Mildura Base Hospital (422 separations), Bass Coast Regional Health (288 separations) 

and Bairnsdale Regional Health Service (273 separations). The importance of border flows 

in towns such as Albury/Wodonga and Mildura was highlighted during the consultations. 

Gaps in rural public ophthalmology services were noted throughout the review. The 

cessation of elective ophthalmology surgery provision, including cataract surgery, at 

Goulburn Valley Health (Shepparton) in 1993 was highlighted. It was also noted that 

access to ophthalmology outpatient services in rural Victoria is variable. There are three 

VACS funded outpatient departments in rural Victoria; Ballarat Health Service, Bendigo 

Health Care Group and Barwon Health. Together they treated 5 per cent of the state’s 

public outpatient clients in 2002–03. 

Some rural hospitals that do not receive VACS funding receive outpatient funding through 

a non-admitted patient grant. As data is not reported to the department for services 

provided through this grant or the MBS, outpatient access is difficult to determine. 

Where public outpatient consultations are not available locally, ophthalmology consulting 

services are generally provided by private ophthalmologists in private consulting rooms. 

The ophthalmologists generally provide the equipment and infrastructure necessary to 

support these services. There are some concerns about the affordability for individual 

patients with this arrangement. 

Of particular concern is the lack of publicly funded laser surgery for rural patients. 

Laser surgery is provided on a non-admitted basis for a range of eye conditions including 

retinal disease, such as diabetic retinopathy, and posterior capsule opacification following 

cataract surgery. 

Gaps in regional service provision are seen to relate to a range of factors including 

service demands, availability of some staff (particularly ophthalmologists) and the costs 

associated with equipment and employing or contracting an ophthalmologist. In some 

areas, this has lead to a distribution of services based on a health service’s ability to 

negotiate a financial arrangement with an ophthalmologist rather than a planned approach 

to service delivery. 

Ophthalmology services in rural areas depend on the hospital’s successful negotiation of 

cost of fees with ophthalmologists and their ability to provide the associated equipment 

and consumables. Many rural hospital CEOs are seeking assistance from the department 

to resolve these problems and would prefer an increased central service planning role with 

local input.


There is a strong view that all regional areas should have comprehensive ophthalmology 

services, that is non-admitted consulting, emergency, operating and community based 

services. Limited access to public ophthalmological services in some major regional 

centres is viewed as a major issue, although most stakeholders believe the service 

provision should not be at too higher cost . 

There is a role for both large and small rural health services in providing ophthalmology 

services. The challenge is to ensure that services are planned and delivered in a 

coordinated way within a region or sub region. Regional hospitals will play a lead role 

in the providing and coordinating of services. Further work needs to be undertaken to 

determine which services need to be delivered at the regional hospital. 

Stakeholder suggestions for improving rural service delivery include: 

• regional service coordination, with distributed service centres 

• a hub and spoke regional model with a mobile facility regularly visiting smaller 

centres while procedures are made available from regional centres 

• telemedicine linkages between smaller rural and regional/metropolitan centres, 

and between regional centres and metropolitan centres. 

• more rural registrar training posts created to support service delivery in regional 

centres. 


Children aged 0 to 14 years constitute 3.8 per cent of ophthalmology separations 

and 5.4 per cent of ophthalmology MBS claims. Paediatric inpatient services are 

concentrated centrally with the RCH treating 37 per cent and the RVEEH treating 

16 per cent in 2002–03. Private hospitals treated 22 per cent of separations. 

There is stakeholder support for the RCH to continue its role as the key provider 

of tertiary paediatric ophthalmology services. Due to the specialist requirements 

for treating paediatric patients, it is recommended that the RCH continue its role 

in specialist provision of paediatric services.



4. The following health services should ensure the provision of primary and 

secondary services for their tertiary campuses, including 24-hour on call, inpatient, 

outpatient and emergency consulting and surgery: 

• Metropolitan 

– RVEEH 

– Western Health 

– Northern Health 

– Melbourne Health 

– Austin Health 

– Eastern Health 

– Bayside Health 

– Southern Health 

– Peninsula Health 

• Rural and regional 

The implications for the five major regional hospitals to provide the range 

of services specified above will need to be considered in detail. Regional 

hospitals will play an important role in the provision and coordination of 

services across their region. 

Elective surgery may be provided in alternate settings to the tertiary site or 

regional hospital, such as in same day and elective surgery centres or other rural 

hospitals. 

The Royal Children’s Hospital should continue its role in specialist provision 

of paediatric ophthalmology services. 

A distributed service system should be maintained through the provision 

of a range of primary and secondary services at rural hospitals.



The RVEEH is a specialist teaching, training and referral hospital for ophthalmology and ear 

note and throat services. Internationally, it is one of about 20 major stand-alone specialist 

hospitals in eye and ear medicine. The RVEEH plays a key role in teaching and training 

health professionals in ophthalmology and has an international reputation in medical 

research through its close association with the University of Melbourne Department of 

Ophthalmology and its affiliation with the Centre for Eye Research Australia (CERA). 

The RVEEH provides a range of general and sub-speciality ophthalmology services. 

Sub-speciality services include glaucoma treatment, vitreo-retinal, ocular motility, 

orbito-plastics, corneal, ocular diagnostics, neuro-ophthalmology, medical retinal 

and ocular immunology. The RVEEH provides 39 per cent of the state’s public cataract 

surgery and treats a high proportion of specialty surgery including: 

• 90 per cent of the state’s public major corneal, scleral and conjunctival procedures 

• 75 per cent of the state’s public retinal surgery 

• 71 per cent of the state’s public glaucoma procedures. 

Many stakeholders commented that the RVEEH is centrally located and is, therefore, 

very accessible to patients. The majority of stakeholders believe that the RVEEH provides 

a very good service for tertiary patients. 

There was considerable support to maintain the multidisciplinary sub-specialty clinics 

provided by the RVEEH, and for ophthalmology care to be provided in a coordinated 

fashion with specialist care at other hospitals (for example, diabetic and immunological), 

ensuring appropriate care for complex patients. There was support for the maintenance 

and growth, over time, of integrated services in all metropolitan and regional tertiary 

general hospitals. 

It was also suggested that some specialised procedures should be limited, through 

credentialing processes, to the RVEEH. 

As recommended in the MHS, the RVEEH requires a detailed service plan and review 

to determine its future role and optimal location. This detailed service plan for the RVEEH 

will determine its catchment for primary and secondary services as well. 

There is strong support for the RVEEH to continue its role as a statewide provider of public 

tertiary ophthalmology services with a high concentration of specialised services, possibly 

collocated with a general tertiary hospital. As a specialist centre, the RVEEH should: 

• reduce its emphasis on routine care, and more actively triage primary care patients 

to more appropriate settings 

• more actively discharge patients from both emergency and outpatient departments 

back to the community as appropriate, thereby creating additional capacity to manage 

new referrals more efficiently 

• maintain its focus on multidisciplinary specialist clinics


• provide a combination of teaching and service operating sessions 

• with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO), the 

department and other eye care stakeholders, lead the evaluation of new models of care 

• provide enhanced clinical support to other elements of the service system 

• actively participate in statewide monitoring of the performance of the service system 

• assist to ensure equitable service provision across the state, through outreach services 

and other mechanisms 

• continue an active teaching and research role. 

Melbourne consumers and consumer representatives were highly conscious that people 

living in rural Victoria did not have the same access to a facility such as the RVEEH. 

However, the overall consensus amongst consumers was to keep the RVEEH as a 

centralised, specialty hospital, even though its location was not central to those living in 

rural and regional Victoria. 

Moreover, St Vincent’s Health should continue to ensure access through linkages with the 

RVEEH. This arrangement will need to be reviewed within the context of service planning 

for the RVEEH redevelopment. 


5. The RVEEH should continue its role in teaching, research and specialist 

provision of ophthalmology services. The RVEEH will provide primary and 

secondary services to its local population and provide elective surgical services 

to a broader population. 

Forecast demand for eye services 

Eye disease is forecast to double by the year 2020, which will lead to more demands 

on eye care services. 

The Visual Impairment Project (VIP) was conducted by CERA from 1991 to 1999 to 

determine the prevalence and causes of visual impairment in Victoria and to examine 

health care utilisation. Key findings include: 

• more than 80 per cent of vision loss is caused by five conditions: refractive error, 

age related macular degeneration (AMD), cataract, glaucoma and diabetes 

• the amount of visual impairment and blindness increases threefold with each decade 

of age over 40 years 

• the ageing of the population will lead to a doubling in the amount of eye disease 

by 2020 

• three quarters of visual impairment can be prevented or treated. 

Figure 3 illustrates the projected prevalence of visual impairment in Australia from 

1995 to 2020, based on data extrapolated from the VIP.


Figure 3: Projected visual impairment in Australia 

Hospital inpatient forecasts 

The department’s method of forecasting uses linear regression methods where forecasts 

are generated for utilisation rates based on retrospective years of data. This approach 

assumes that the past relationship between variables will be the same in future years. 

For forecasting purposes, Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs) are rolled into Enhanced 

Service Related Groups (ESRGs) and subsequently Specialty Related Groups (SRGs). 

ESRGs for ophthalmology are cataract procedures, other eye procedures and nonprocedural 

ophthalmology. Details of DRGs included under each of these ophthalmology 

ESRGs and their growth from 1999–00 to 2002–03 are listed in Appendix 7. 

There is forecast growth in ophthalmology (public and private) separations of 3.4 per 

cent per annum and bed days of 2.9 per cent per annum to 2016–17. This growth is led 

by cataract procedures with a forecast growth in separations of 4.2 per cent per annum 

or a doubling by 2016–17 (Figure 4). Other eye procedures are forecast to grow at 1.1 per 

cent per annum and non-procedural ophthalmology is forecast to grow at 2.0 per cent per 

annum (Figures 5 and 6). Detailed forecasts for each ESRG are listed in Appendix 8. 

Figure 4: Cataract procedures forecast (separations) – 

Victorian public and private hospitals, 2001–02 to 2016–17 2 

2 To maintain consistency 

throughout the framework 

development process, the July 

2003 version of the forecasting 

model, with 2001–02 as base year, 

was used for the entirety of this 

project, from the development 

of the discussion paper to the 

publication of the framework.


Figure 5: Other eye procedures forecast (separations) – 

Victorian public and private hospitals, 2001–02 to 2016–17 

Figure 6: Non-procedural ophthalmology forecasts (separations) – 


Public hospital inpatient forecasts 

Forecasts for public hospital activity indicate that by 2016–17 there will be a 3.3 per cent 

per annum increase in ophthalmology inpatient separations, with a 4.3 per cent per annum 

increase in same day separations and a 1.0 per cent per annum decrease in multiday 

separations (refer Appendix 8). 

The average length of stay (ALOS) for multiday ophthalmology separations is forecast 

to reduce from 2.08 days in 2001–02 to 1.88 days in 2016–17, a reduction of 0.7 per cent 

per annum. 

Public cataract procedures are forecast to grow at 4.5 per cent per annum to 2016–17, 

with a continued shift to sameday activity and a decline in multiday ALOS from 1.28 to 

1.19 days. Public other eye procedure separations are forecast to grow at 0.7 per cent 

per annum to 2016–17. This will occur in the setting of a shift from multiday to sameday 

separations with an overall decline in bed days at 0.3 per cent per annum. Multiday ALOS 

will decline from 1.94 days to 1.66 days.


Public non-procedural ophthalmology is a small but important component of 

ophthalmology practice. There is expected to be a 2.0 per cent per annum growth in 

separations and a 0.2 per cent per annum growth in bed days. Multiday ALOS will decline 

from 3.48 to 3.19 days. 

The Victorian resident population is forecast to grow by 1.11 per cent per annum in 

metropolitan Melbourne and 0.71 per cent per annum in rural Victoria (Appendix 9). 

Ophthalmology forecasts, however, indicate that by 2016–17 there will be higher growth 

in rural (3.8 per cent growth per annum) compared to metropolitan areas (3.3 per cent 

annual growth). Forecast annual growth for each region is as follows: 

• Eastern - 3.0 per cent 

• Northern and Western – 3.4 per cent 

• Southern – 3.5 per cent 

• Barwon South West - 3.1 per cent 

• Grampians – 3.9 per cent 

• Loddon Mallee – 3.9 per cent 

• Hume - 4.5 per cent 

• Gippsland – 4.2 per cent 

Forecast prevalence of eye health conditions 

The forecasts provided by the department are for inpatient care. A large proportion of eye 

health conditions, however, require little or no inpatient treatment and can be effectively 

managed in the community or outpatient settings, and therefore are not captured in these 

forecasts. The following forecasts for diabetic eye disease, glaucoma, AMD and refractive 

error are based on current prevalence and population forecasts. 

With an increased focus on health promotion through the Vision Initiative the potential 

exists to increase demand for eye services, as many of the following eye disorders are 

undiagnosed. 

Diabetic eye disease 

The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study undertaken in 1999–2000 found that 

one in 13 Australian adults (940,000 people, or 7.5 per cent of the adult population) have 

diabetes, but half do not know it. It was found that 15.3 per cent of those with diabetes 

had retinopathy. The prevalence of retinopathy was 21.9 per cent in those with known 

type-2 diabetes and 6.2 per cent in those newly diagnosed. The prevalence of proliferative 

diabetic retinopathy was 2.1 per cent in those with known diabetes, with no cases of 

proliferative diabetic retinopathy found in those newly diagnosed. Untreated vision 

threatening retinopathy was present in 1.2 per cent of known cases (Tapp et al, 2003). 

Current estimates extrapolated from this study indicate that the prevalence of diabetic 

retinopathy in Victoria will grow from nearly 38,000 people aged 25 and over in 2003 to 

nearly 45,600 in 2016. This assumes no change in the proportion of the adult population 

with type-2 diabetes and diabetic retinopathy in 2016.


As all people with diabetes are at risk of developing eye disease, and only half of these 

people have regular eye examinations, a large unmet demand for services exists. 

Considering that early diagnosis and treatment can prevent up to 98 per cent of severe 

vision loss, strategies that address the barriers to regular screening (lack of awareness 

and communication breakdowns) have been identified as the means of managing this 

condition (CERA, 2000). 

Glaucoma 

As glaucoma prevalence is closely correlated with ageing, the ageing of the population 

over coming years will have a profound effect on the prevalence of the disease. Current 

estimates extrapolated from the VIP (Figure 7) indicate that the prevalence of glaucoma 

will grow from approximately 41,000 people aged over 40 years to more than 55,000 by 

2016 in Victoria. 

As half of all glaucoma is undiagnosed, early detection and effective treatment are likely 

to have a positive impact on the level of consequential visual impairment from the disease. 

Figure 7: Age specific prevalence of glaucoma (CERA, 2000) 

Age-related macular degeneration 

As with glaucoma, prevalence of AMD is age-related (Figure 8). The prevalence of the 

disease is forecast to grow from 330,000 people in 2003 to more than 430,000 people 

in Victoria by 2016. While the effectiveness of treatments are currently limited, the 

development and uptake of new technologies (such as photodynamic therapy) will be in 

high demand in the future. Access to low vision services is required for people with vision 

loss through AMD in order to optimise visual function.


Figure 8: Age specific prevalence of AMD (CERA, 2000) 

Refractive error 

Refractive error is a defect of the eye’s focus which effects distance and/or near vision, 

and if uncorrected, results in vision impairment. It has been identified in a number of 

population-based studies as the leading cause of visual impairment in the developed 

world and a leading cause of functional blindness in the developing world. 

Ten per cent of Victorians have significant refractive error leading to an improvement 

of one or more lines of visual acuity with glasses. The risk of under corrected refractive 

error increases 1.8 times for every decade of life after 40 years of age (Liou et al, 1999). 

Under-corrected refractive error, defined as improvement of greater than or equal to 

10 letters (2+ lines on the log MAR chart) in people with presenting visual acuity of 

6/9 or worse, may be present in up to 22 per cent (Thiagalingam et al, 2002). 

Refractive error can be corrected by glasses, contact lenses or surgery. 

There are five refractive laser surgery centres in Victoria. These are all private facilities 

with only a small number of therapeutic procedures funded through the MBS or the public 

hospital sector. Apart from government funded procedures, refractive surgery activity is 

undocumented, as licensing and billing arrangements do not require reporting of activity 

to State and Commonwealth Governments. Despite the paucity of data, refractive laser 

surgery appears to be a significant area of ophthalmic practice in the private sector. 


Paediatric inpatient separations have declined 2.0 per cent per anum since 1998–99 and 

MBS claims have declined 2.4 per cent since 1999–2000. Most paediatric separations 

are grouped into the ESRG other eye procedures (81 per cent) followed by non-procedural 

ophthalmology (13 per cent) and cataract procedures (4 per cent). Paediatric separations 

are forecast to decline 2.8 per cent per annum to 2016–17 with other eye procedures 

forecast to decline 3.8 per cent per annum (Figure 9).


Figure 9: Paediatric forecasts for other eye procedures (separations) – 


Cost of vision loss 

A study by Access Economics (2004) estimated that the total cost of vision disorders 

in Australia in 2004 is $9.85 billion. Growth in the prevalence of eye disease will increase 

the direct and indirect costs from vision loss. 

Nationally, direct health costs of treating eye disease are estimated at $1.8 billion, more 

than health spending on diabetes and asthma combined. Hospital costs are the largest 

at $692 million (38 per cent) followed by specialists and other out-of-hospital referred 

medical costs at $226.0 million (12 per cent) and pharmaceutical costs at $208.8 million 

(11 per cent). By 2020, direct costs are projected to more that double to $3.7 billion. 

Cataract is the largest single direct health cost condition at $327 million (18 per cent), 

followed by refractive error at $261 million (14 per cent) and glaucoma at $144 million 

(8 per cent). 

Indirect costs of visual impairment are estimated at $3.2 billion. These include lost 

earnings at $1,800 million (56 per cent) and carers’ costs at $845 million (26 per cent). 

Indirect costs have been identified by CERA as follows: 

Government 

• increased costs on the primary health system (vision loss increases the risk of falls 

and hip fractures and depression) 

• early entry into supported accommodation or aged care facility 

• early reliance on supported home care 

• early reliance on social welfare system (through loss of income and reduced 

productivity) 

• early admission to aged care facilities.


Community 

• increased pressure on other community services 

• loss of participation in the community. 

Individual 

• prevents healthy ageing 

• increased mortality (risk of death is two times greater than the community average) 

• creation of other health issues (physical and emotional, particularly depression) 

• diminished quality of life through reduced independence, mobility and confidence. 

Projections of health care expenditure on eye care 

Nationally, by 2020, direct health costs for eye care are projected to more than double 

to $3.7 billion, primarily due to demographic ageing. Hospital costs are projected to reach 

$1.45 billion, with cataract costing $668 million per annum (Access Economics, 2004). 

4.2 Appropriateness 

‘Essentially, the appropriateness of health care is about using evidence to do 

the right thing to the right patient, at the right time, avoiding over and under 

utilisation’ (VQC, 2003). 

Utilisation rates 

Service utilisation can be used as a measure of appropriateness of care. A number of 

studies have examined the utilisation of eye care services in Australia. Findings include: 

• geographic variability in rates of ophthalmology care despite similarity in the prevalence 

of eye disease between rural and urban areas 

• utilisation of eye care services increases with age 

• gender, private health insurance, urban residence, and English language skills are 

significant factors associated with eye health care service use 

• incongruence between the proportion of the ophthalmology practice sites and the 

proportion of the population in various urban and rural areas. 

(Keefe et al, 2002; Madden et al, 2002) 

An age-standardised analysis of ophthalmology inpatient separations undertaken at 

a local government area (LGA) level demonstrated large variations between LGAs in 

utilisation rates for each ophthalmology ESRG. This is similar to analysis undertaken 

in NSW (NSW Health, 2002).


Cataract surgery 

Debate exists over the appropriateness of some cataract procedures. While the 

effectiveness of cataract surgery is well established, disagreement exists about there 

being any evidence of inappropriate intervention in relation to cataract surgery. With the 

lower threshold for cataract surgery there were concerns raised by some stakeholders 

that, in some cases, cataract surgery was being performed earlier than ideal. 

As well as the threshold for cataract surgery being lowered, it was suggested that 

there is a growing trend in cataract surgery being performed to correct refractive error. 

Some clinicians are eliminating the need for glasses through customising surgery with new 

intraocular implants, surgical astigmatic correction and early second eye surgery. 

Data suggests that cataract procedures are increasing at a rate greater than the 

population is ageing, with the change in threshold for surgery attributed as the biggest 

factor in this disproportionate rise. 

Table 7 demonstrates that while Victoria’s total population has grown at 1.1 per cent per 

annum and the population aged over 70 years has grown at 3.0 per cent per annum over 

the period 1995–96 to 2001–02, cataract procedures have grown at 8.1 per cent per 

annum over the same period. The age standardised growth rate of cataract procedures 

has been 5.5 per cent per annum, attributable to the reduction in threshold of surgery. 

Table 7: Growth in population and cataract procedures - Victoria 1995–96 to 2001–02 

1995–96 2001–02 Growth pa 1995–96 – 2001–02 

Victorians 70+ years of age 391,194 452,604 3.0% 

Total Victorian population 4,560,155 4,822,663 1.1% 

Cataract procedures 21,152 31,259 8.1% 

Age adjusted cataract procedures 

(adjusted to 2001–02 population distribution) 

23,925 31,259 5.5% 

The common unit of measure of cataract surgery is the cataract surgery rate (CSR), 

defined as the number of procedures per million people per year. The Victorian CSR 

of 6,116 (Table 8) is among the highest reported in the literature, compared to other 

Australian states and higher than international comparisons (about 5,700 for the United 

States, 4,000 for Sweden and 2,700 for the United Kingdom) (Taylor, 2000).


Table 8: Cataract surgery rate per million population 2001–02 3 – 

Australian states and territories – ABS and AIHW (2003) 

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT Total 

Public 

hospitals 

Private 

hospitals 

13,531 11,803 4,761 4,232 4,489 112 652 303 39,883 

34,284 17,774 20,733 7,989 6,782 N/A N/A N/A 91,257 

Total 47,815 29,577 25,494 12,221 11,271 112 652 303 131,140 

Total 

population 

6,608,792 4,836,196 3,664,284 1,913,850 1,515,748 472,116 320,275 197,617 19,531,464 

CSR 7,235 6,116 6,957 6,386 7,436 237 2,036 1,533 6,714 

3 Separations relating to 

ICD block 197: Extracapsular 

crystalline lens extraction by 

phacoemulsification 

While incentives to over-service may exist in the private sector, this was not considered 

by most providers to be a problem in public hospitals with sessional payment structures, 

although there is no information to support either view. 

Second eye surgery 

There was specific debate during the consultations about whether surgery on a 

patient’s second cataract should be prioritised over first eye surgery in other patients. 

Approximately one-third of patients receiving first eye surgery will have surgery on their 

second eye within the following year and 50 per cent will do so within two years 

(Acosta & Tuni, 2002). 

The benefit of second eye surgery has been questioned, given the allocation of substantial 

resources. Efficiency arguments (obviating the need to undergo another pre-operative 

assessment) support early operation on the second cataract. Equity arguments may 

support the proposition that the patient should be placed on the waiting list behind others 

with a more urgent need. Others argue that the benefit from second eye surgery is almost 

equal to that of first eye surgery. There was no consensus amongst providers on this issue. 

A study from the United States on cost-utility of cataract surgery in the second eye 

concluded that that second eye cataract surgery is one of the most cost-effective 

procedures in ophthalmology and across medical specialities. Second eye cataract 

surgery, at US$2,727 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, seemed nearly as 

valuable as initial cataract surgery at US$2,023 per QALY gained (Busbee et al, 2002). 

A protocol for a Cochrane review has been proposed to evaluate the effects of cataract 

surgery in both eyes in comparison with surgery in only one eye (Acosta & Tuni, 2002).


Models of care and the role of eye care professionals 

There is debate locally, nationally and internationally regarding the appropriateness 

of emerging ophthalmology models of care and the roles played by different eye care 

professionals. The following are examples of different models of care that have developed 

for the five eye conditions recognised as causing 80 per cent of visual impairment. 

Patients may experience eye health conditions in isolation or in combination. 

Cataract 

As stated previously, there are variations in managing cataract waiting lists, prioritisation 

systems and second eye surgery. Given its high volume, models of care for patients with 

cataract have gained significant attention locally and internationally. These models have 

ignited debate about the appropriateness and effectiveness of care pathways and the 

health care professionals most suitably qualified and skilled to provide the care. 

The preoperative care of cataract is currently managed in a range of settings, including 

community-based ophthalmology and optometry practices and hospital-based outpatient 

clinics. As cataracts generally develop over many years, some hospital outpatient clinics 

refer patients to community providers to monitor the development of cataracts while 

others continue to monitor patients until surgery is required. 

Models of care for the postoperative management of patients following cataract surgery 

have gained significant attention, with new models of postoperative care emerging locally 

and internationally. Throughout the consultations there was robust debate about the 

model of care that has been introduced at the CICC in which the day one review is not 

routinely undertaken. On one hand, the model was defended as providing good patient 

outcomes and having a growing base of evidence on safety and outcomes (Tinley et al, 

2003). On the other hand, it was criticised for being introduced without prior evaluation 

in the Australian context, despite the traditional model of care not being systematically 

evaluated either. An evaluation has now taken place. Results are available at www.health. 

vic.gov.au/electivesurgery. 

It was noted, however, that the day one postoperative review has been removed from 

routine care by some ophthalmologists, particularly in rural areas, and that some 

ophthalmologists and optometrists have established a model of care in the private sector 

whereby optometrists perform the first postoperative review. 

Refractive error 

Refractive error is managed by appropriate refractive aids, including glasses and 

contact lenses. It is managed in a number of settings by a range of providers, including 

ophthalmologists, optometrists and orthoptists. State Government legislation 

(Optometrists Registration Act 1996) restricts glasses’ prescriptions to optometrists, 

medical practitioners and orthoptists on request or referral from an ophthalmologist 

or optometrist. 4 

4 This legislative restriction 

is currently under review 

as part of a review of the 

regulation of the health 

professions in Victoria being 

undertaken by the department.


Many providers suggested that prescriptions for glasses should be provided by as wide 

a group of appropriately trained specialists as possible (ophthalmologists, optometrists 

and orthoptists) and across as broad a geographic area as possible. Increased use of 

orthoptists in the primary care sector may improve access and provide another level of 

competition to the market. Some providers believe that more refractive services should 

be provided in the hospital setting (for example, expand refraction clinics at the RVEEH), 

while the dominant view is that this would be inappropriate and that these services should 

only be provided in community settings. 

Glaucoma 

A number of models of care exist for managing glaucoma patients, these include a range 

of health care professionals and technologies. 

Optometrists have traditionally screened for glaucoma as part of a routine eye examination 

and referred patients to ophthalmologists for treatment if required. Ophthalmic care 

has been supported by orthoptists and ophthalmic nurses in the ongoing monitoring of 

patients through testing procedures such as intraocular pressure monitoring and visual 

field examination. Some optometrists have developed co-management arrangements with 

ophthalmologists to care for glaucoma patients. 

New models of care for managing glaucoma are evolving following the changes to 

Victorian legislation and training programs allowing optometrists to prescribe S4 drugs 

to manage glaucoma and a range of other eye disorders. Protocols for shared care of 

glaucoma patients by ophthalmologists and optometrists have been developed by the 

Optometrists Registration Board of Victoria. These could be used to inform new workforce 

models for management of glaucoma. 

Some concerns about quality of care were expressed about optometrists extending their 

services to chronic disease management, however, there is no evidence that quality of 

care is compromised. 

Diabetic retinopathy 

A number of models of care for screening for diabetic retinopathy that include a range 

of health care professionals and technologies have been shown to be effective. These 

range from dilated fundus examinations by ophthalmologists, GPs, endocrinologists and 

optometrists, to the use of non-mydriatic cameras by orthoptists and ophthalmic nurses. 

These models should be considered for future adoption. Similarly, previous pilot projects 

funded by the department explored alternative workforce roles and approaches to manage 

patients with diabetic retinopathy that could be considered for broader application into 

the future. 

Screening for diabetic retinopathy by ophthalmologists every two years has a cost 

effectiveness of US$49,760 QALY compared with costs of US$15,000 for annual screening 

with a non-mydriatic camera (Vijan, 2000, and Maberley, 2003, cited in Access 

Economics, 2004).


Age-related macular degeneration 

While there are currently only limited treatment options for AMD, access to low vision 

services is considered important for people to develop skills to support their lifestyle 

with limited vision. Low vision services are currently provided across a range of settings 

and professional groups. Service provision ranges from individual practitioners to large 

community organisations such as the Vision Australia Foundation and the Royal Victorian 

Institute for the Blind (RVIB). 

To improve access to low vision services, the RVEEH has developed an arrangement 

with Vision Australia Foundation to provide onsite access to services. Services include 

rehabilitation, low vision assessment clinics and living support services. 

The predicted development of new treatment modalities for AMD may require new 

models of care. 

Workforce 

There is a relatively good supply of health care professionals with specific ophthalmic 

training and skills, however, there is a general view amongst stakeholders that better 

use could be made of the existing workforce, particularly those with specialist skills. In 

many instances, arrangements already exist between ophthalmologists and orthoptists, 

ophthalmologists and nurses, or ophthalmologists and optometrists at a local level, 

including varying roles for practitioners in areas such as pre and post operative 

assessment of cataract patients and the management and monitoring of some glaucoma 

patients. 

There have been several barriers to achieving more widespread, multidisciplinary 

workforce models that make best use of available skills, including: 

• funding models that prevent less qualified staff taking on less complex aspects 

of eye care 

• a long history of acrimony between professional groups which has prevented 

effective collaboration at a statewide level 

• legislative restrictions on who can prescribe glasses without referral and 

prescribing therapeutics, which has limited which groups can prescribe and 

under what circumstances. 

According to stakeholders, there is a range of areas in which the roles of non-medical 

staff could potentially be used. Optometrists are highly regarded for their expertise 

and accessibility, and are recognised by many as an under-utilised resource. Many 

stakeholders believe that other health care professionals, including GPs, orthoptists 

and nurses, also have considerable potential to contribute to more efficient, effective 

and accessible service delivery. There is support for exploring more multidisciplinary 

approaches to care that make best use of available workforce skills and also improve 

patient access to care.


Suggested areas in which non-medical staff could be better utilised include: 

• pre and post operative cataract management 

• refractive error 

• glaucoma screening and management 

• diabetic screening and monitoring. 

4.3 Efficiency 

‘Efficiency refers to the way in which resources are utilised to achieve 

value for money. This can be achieved by focusing on minimising the cost 

combination of resource inputs in the production of a particular service 

(technical efficiency) as well as the allocation of resources to those services 

to provide the greatest benefit to consumers. Allocative efficiency informs 

decisions on what services or treatments to deliver, whereas technical 

efficiency is concerned with reducing costs and minimisation of waste.’ 

(VQC, 2003). 

Technical efficiency: models of care and work settings 

Ophthalmology surgical procedures are generally considered to be efficient in comparison 

to other surgical procedures. However, many providers recognise that there is potential 

to enhance the efficiency of the system through better coordination of care, better use 

of dedicated facilities and better utilisation of optometrists, orthoptists, nurses and GPs. 

Developing new service models that improve service efficiency and enhance continuity of 

care is a key direction of the MHS in meeting demand for services. Of particular relevance 

to the delivery of ophthalmology services are the directions for the development of new 

models of care for elective surgery and ambulatory care services. 

Models of care for surgical services in ophthalmology have undergone significant 

changes in the past two decades with an increasing trend for ambulatory care through 

the introduction of day case, local anaesthetic cataract surgery and phacoemulsification 

surgery. 


The ability to meet elective surgery demand has been affected by increasing emergency 

admissions (MHS, 2003). This is particularly relevant to ophthalmology services provided 

in large general tertiary hospitals where elective surgery may be cancelled to allow for 

emergency procedures. 

ESAS has indicated that there is value in providing targeted elective surgery capacity 

that can be separated from the impact of emergency demand. The new Elective Surgery 

Centre being developed at the Alfred Hospital will provide a new model of care for the 

delivery of short stay elective surgery. It will physically separate scheduled short stay 

services from emergency and acute inpatient services to avoid delays and improve the 

efficiency of delivering elective surgery.


This model will support the delivery of ophthalmology services due to its elective 

and short stay profile. The model of care implemented at Southern Health’s CICC 

also promotes efficient service delivery through the provision of same day elective 

surgery only. 

A recent Cochrane review was conducted to provide reliable evidence about the safety, 

feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cataract extraction performed as day 

care versus inpatient procedure (Hamed & Fedorowicz, 2004). This review provides some 

evidence that there is a cost saving but no significant difference in outcome or risk of 

postoperative complications between day care and inpatient cataract surgery. Evidence 

regarding patient preferences for day care surgery versus inpatient admission was 

inconclusive. 

There is considerable stakeholder support for high volume elective surgery facilities for 

ophthalmology services. In their view, the fact that a large proportion of eye surgery is 

done on a same day basis provides opportunity for further expansion of services without 

very high capital investment. Many providers consider that using dedicated elective 

surgery theatres will enable a critical mass of patients to be treated whose procedures are 

often cancelled due to priority being given to emergency cases from other specialties. 

It was suggested that throughput for an individual operating theatre needs to be at least 

ten operations per day, five days per week (2,500 operations per year, which would include 

approximately 2,000 cataract operations per year) to be optimally efficient. High volume 

centres would ensure a critical mass to make the provision of expensive equipment and 

staff sustainable. The CICC model of care which promotes enhanced community links 

may provide direction for future development. It was noted by many providers that private 

day-surgery centres have a high level of productivity and there may be opportunity for 

collaboration between the public and private sectors. 

It is uniformly agreed that surgical teaching lists are relatively slower and more expensive 

than consultant surgical lists. There is an opportunity to establish guidelines to allow 

sufficient teaching lists to be retained while allowing more consultant-run service lists. 

Ambulatory care 

There is considerable scope to provide alternative eye care in public hospitals, as a range 

of accessible and affordable community eye care providers are already available. This is 

consistent with the MHS, which has identified the expansion of ambulatory care services 

in the community as a key direction for the future and states that: 

Ambulatory care services should be provided in a community-based 

setting unless considered inappropriate for safety, quality of care and 

efficiency reasons. 

Developing an ambulatory services framework will guide this policy direction and will 

focus on developing models of care that effectively manage of people with chronic and 

complex conditions across the care continuum from prevention, early intervention, 

diagnosis, treatment, continuing care to palliation.


A range of strategies have been identified to support the delivery of ambulatory 

care services relevant to ophthalmology. The first is the creation of health precincts. 

Health precincts aim to bring together a range of health and related services to create 

a community hub of the local service system. They will be the first point of call for a 

range of primary and secondary health services, tailored to meet local needs, all within 

a comprehensive environment. These precincts will allow existing public and private, 

primary and secondary services to be collocated with new services such as super clinics. 

The second is the creation of super clinics. Super clinics will be new community-based 

facilities that will treat people with complex medical conditions requiring specialist 

intervention in a community setting as a substitute for hospitalisation. The super clinic 

concept builds on established hospital outreach services such as Integrated Care Centres 

and hub and spoke service delivery by relocating hospital services to community-based 

settings. Hospital-based ambulatory services should continue to target secondary and 

some tertiary health services of a more complex level, for example, day surgery, diagnostic 

services and outpatient pre-admission. 

Workforce change 

The potential exists to improve efficiency of eye care delivery through better use of 

the available skills of the current eye care workforce across various streams of care. 

In particular, new service models and settings such as super clinics and health precincts 

offer the opportunity to establish and/or expand workforce models that make best use of 

available specialist skills. This could involve reorganising existing work and/or expanding 

roles for existing practitioners, depending on the forecast service needs 

and workforce availability in local regions. 


6. The following will increase the capacity of the system to provide for future 

demand: 

• establishment and expansion of services in general tertiary hospitals 

• development and expansion of models of care that promote effective 

and efficient delivery of eye care services 

• increased use of elective surgery centres for ophthalmology surgery (in particular 

cataract surgery) 

• establishment and/or expansion of workforce models that make best use 

of the existing workforce in public hospitals and in community settings 

(that is, optometrists, orthoptists and nurses undertaking greater roles in the 

provision of eye care).


Allocative efficiency 

There was considerable debate about the large number of low complexity patients that 

present to the RVEEH emergency department for management, when they could be 

managed in other general hospital or community settings. It was suggested, however, that 

patients self-triage and cannot be stopped from presenting at the RVEEH and that once 

they present they need to be managed in that setting. 

Others thought that emergency care should, by preference, be centred on the RVEEH. 

Overall, however, there was support for the concept of the majority of ophthalmic 

emergency care being provided in general emergency departments with a much more 

active triaging system at the RVEEH, with on-referral of appropriate patients to community 

or other settings. 

It was suggested during consultation that discharge of outpatients to community-based 

providers should become the norm at the RVEEH, rather than patients continuing to be 

reviewed in a hospital setting. This would increase capacity to treat new patients who 

currently experience long waiting periods for outpatient clinics. 

Funding and price 

Public hospitals are funded through a combination of casemix payments and specified 

grants. The casemix cost weights are developed through an in depth study of hospital 

activities. The cost weights for same day ophthalmology DRGs from 2000–01 to 2004–05 

are listed in Table 9 5 . The standard rate per Weighted Inlier Equivalent Separation (WIES) 

for rural hospitals is slightly more than the WEIS for metropolitan hospitals, in recognition 

of the higher costs of running small hospitals. 

5 The weighting is derived 

through annual costing studies 

which compare, in participating 

hospitals, the relative resource 

consumption of each DRG against 

all others. Intra-hospital costing 

systems are fundamental to 

casemix. While they vary between 

hospitals, the relativity in resource 

consumption for each DRG 

within each hospital produces a 

reliable weighting.


Same day weight 

DRG Code and Name 

2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 

c01Z Procedures for penetrating eye injury 0.6175 0.6316 0.605 1.1162 0.7883 

c02Z Enucleations and orbital procedures 0.93 1.1506 1.0703 0.9444 0.7017 

c03Z Retinal procedures 0.8436 0.8669 0.8472 0.843 0.8433 

c04Z Maj corneal, scleral & conjunctival procs 0.7637 0.9147 0.9368 0.7871 1.0693 

c05Z Dacryocystorhinostomy 0.7287 0.7554 0.7787 0.7915 0.7302 

c06Z Complex glaucoma procedures 0.5738 0.4661 0.4538 0.4736 

c07Z Other glaucoma procedures 0.6563 0.707 0.5909 0.5991 

c08Z Major lens procedures 0.6214 0.5925 0.5995 0.5845 

c09Z Other lens procedures 0.616 0.7208 0.7518 0.8231 

c10Z Strabismus procedures 0.4275 0.4867 0.4791 0.4275 0.4226 

c11Z Eyelid procedures 0.4056 0.4282 0.4103 0.3999 0.4148 

c12Z Oth corneal, scleral & conjunctival procs 0.3211 0.3296 0.3256 0.4379 0.3708 

c13Z Lacrimal procedures 0.3703 0.2705 0.2778 0.2687 0.2309 

c14Z Other eye procedures 0.342 0.3429 0.3292 0.3042 0.3112 

c15A Glaucoma/cx cataract procedures 0.7051 

c15B Glaucoma/cx cataract procedures, sd 0.5228 

c16A Lens procedures 0.7398 

c16B Lens procedures, sd 0.6003 

c60A Acute and major eye infections age>54 0.3796 0.4313 0.4411 0.4604 0.3442 

c60B Acute and major eye infections age


There were strong views that public WIES payments for cataracts do not cover the cost 

of surgery in rural areas, because of the predominance of fee-for-service medical payment 

structures. This creates an incentive for hospitals to admit an increased number of private 

patients (self-funded or insured) or to cease service provision altogether. 

Most providers consider that fee-for-service for ophthalmologists may be appropriate in 

some settings, but there is disagreement about the appropriate fee level. There was some 

support for the government being involved in determining the appropriate fee level. 

Funding models are required that support the implementation of the service system, 

including the delivery of: 

• surgical services in metropolitan health services 

• high volume elective surgery centres/same day centres 

• services in regional ophthalmology centres and rural hospitals. 

Stakeholder suggestions for improving service provision included: 

• introducing competitive tender of cataract services on a local, regional or statewide 

basis 

• providing WIES payments to eligible public patients in the form of vouchers, which 

could then be used to purchase public surgical services from their provider of choice 

• developing partnerships between major providers, public or private, with public 

metropolitan or rural health services 

• developing a consortium of public and/or private providers. 


7. Develop a funding model that supports the system structure.


4.4 Acceptability 

‘Consumer and community participation should enhance the level of 

acceptability of services which describes the degree to which a service 

meets or exceeds the expectations of informed consumers.’ (VQC, 2003). 

To gain the views of ophthalmology service users, two consumer focus groups were 

conducted. In general, it was found that consumers have great confidence in Victoria’s 

ophthalmology services: 

‘…taking Australia as a whole I think they have the biggest and best 

reputation as far as eye care goes’ 

‘I would say there are some excellent ophthalmologists and optometrists and 

other eye care specialists in the field in Victoria. There is absolutely 

no question about that’ 

‘You’d have to say that Victoria has the geographical spread of those kind of 

services’ 

In consultation, consumers often commented on the quality of services received at the 

RVEEH. Many comments by consumers about the acceptability of services related to the 

RVEEH. It is very highly regarded because it is a public facility with emergency access, 

provides specialised, high quality treatment, and provides teaching and research. 

Most consumers are aware that the RVEEH is a teaching and training hospital and 

assumed that it was also a centre for important eye related research. These appeared 

to be significant factors contributing to its perceived status and reputation: 

‘… apart from being a world class eye specialist hospital it also has very good 

research and training…’ 

Providers confirmed that there is tremendous loyalty from RVEEH patients, who can 

be reluctant to accept referrals to other providers or be discharged from care. It was 

noted, however, that getting to and from the RVEEH had been a distressing experience 

for most of the rural consumers. Reasons identified through the consultations and through 

research by the Brotherhood of St Laurence (Diviney & Lillywhite, 2004) related to: 

• cost of transport, meals and accommodation 

• transport, including lack of familiarity with trains, not wanting to drive themselves to 

hospital and the problems of finding someone else who was willing and had the time 

• lack of carers in Melbourne after discharge 

• having to rely on family members for transport and post operative care 

• lack of confidence in the city, including getting around the city and understanding 

tram routes


• awkward appointment times, compounded by limited train and bus schedules, 

making a one-day round trip very difficult 

• stress regarding how long things would take and allowing sufficient time. 

4.5 Effectiveness 

‘Consumers of health services should be able to expect that the treatment 

they receive will produce measurable benefit. The effectiveness of health care 

relates to the extent to which a treatment, intervention or service achieves 

the desired outcome.’ (VQC, 2003) 

The effectiveness of ophthalmology interventions for some conditions, particularly 

cataract surgery and laser therapy for some retinal conditions including diabetic 

retinopathy, has been well established. In the case of cataract surgery, 80 to 95 per cent 

of patients have improved visual acuity and functioning (Acosta & Tuni, 2002). Table 10 

provides examples of ophthalmic interventions that are highly cost-effective (Access 

Economics, 2004). 

Table 10: Cost utility ophthalmic interventions 

(QALY – quality adjusted life year) 

Intervention 

US$/QALY gained 

Laser therapy for threshold retinopathy of prematurity 781 

Vitrectomy for vitreous haemorrhage in patients with type 1 diabetes 2,085 

Initial cataract surgery 2,141 

Laser therapy for diabetic macular oedema 3,386 

Screening and treating eye disease in patients with diabetes mellitus 3,816 

Providers agree that modern cataract surgery is very cost-effective compared with other 

hospital-based interventions and is one of the most cost-effective surgical procedures 

of any type at US$2,141 QALY for the first eye and US$2,727 for the second eye (Busbee 

et al, 2002). Cataract surgery is considered safe, although approximately 20 per cent 

of patients need follow-up laser treatment within two years of surgery because of 

opacification of the posterior capsule (Acosta & Tuni, 2002). 

There was considerable debate about whether a minimum volume of surgical procedures 

for either ophthalmologists or hospitals was required to assure good outcomes. There 

was no consensus on this issue, with some providers believing that a minimum volume 

of surgical procedure was necessary and others suggesting that outcomes are more 

dependent on past training and experience than present volume. 

Where minimum volumes of surgery were thought to improve outcomes, the role of the 

RANZCO in identifying appropriate volumes was highlighted. It was noted that adequate 

numbers of less common procedures would be difficult to undertake in some areas.


Evidence-based practice and benchmarking in ophthalmology practice are generally 

supported by providers. There is some support also for formal role delineation in public 

hospitals, similar to that which applies in the state trauma care system (refer to www. 

health.vic.gov.au/trauma for more). 

General comments raised in the course of the consultation relating to the effectiveness 

of eye care services are as follows: 

• it was generally agreed that public hospital emergency department services are 

of much higher quality since the introduction of Fellows of the Australian College 

of Emergency Medicine 

• several providers commented on the need to centralise specialist outpatient clinics 

at the RVEEH, to ensure sufficient volume and, therefore, quality. Subspecialty services 

can be provided at a basic level but comprehensive clinics should be provided at 

RVEEH to ensure adequate catchment area 

• the collocation of the RVEEH and its research institutes was considered by many to 

contribute to the overall effectiveness of care, through stimulating service development 

and academic effort and inquiry 

• there was considerable support for audit and quality assurance. It was suggested that 

pre-operative functional assessment would be a good tool for auditing the waiting list 

and outcomes. Some providers suggested specific key performance indicators that 

could be monitored, these relate to all dimensions of quality and are listed in 

Appendix 10 

• mostly, it was believed that audit and outcome monitoring should be conducted and 

reviewed locally, although there was some support for regional or central monitoring 

and reporting to the public. 

4.6 Safety 

‘A major objective of any health care system should be the safe progress 

of consumers through all parts of the system. Harm arising from care, by 

omission or commission, as well as from the environment in which it is carried 

out, must be avoided and risk minimised in care delivery processes.’ 

(VQC, 2003) 

Complication and adverse outcomes for high volume procedures such as cataract surgery 

are rare but potentially very serious. There are systems that monitor safety of clinical care 

at a local, state and national level. 

At a local and state level, as part of the department’s Clinical Risk Management program, 

hospitals and health services are required to monitor and manage adverse events 

internally. Serious adverse events, however, are analysed through root cause analysis 

and reported to the department through the Sentinel Event program.


At a national level, the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) collects a 

range of clinical indicators for ophthalmology services for benchmarking purposes as 

part of its Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program (EQuIP) accreditation program. 

These have been developed by the ACHS in collaboration with the RANCZO as a measure 

of the clinical management and outcome of care. Indicators have been developed for 

cataract surgery, glaucoma surgery, retinal detachment surgery and excimer laser (refer 

to www.achs.org.au for more). ACHS indicators related to safety include readmissions, 

readmissions due to infections, anterior vitrectomy rates, long lengths of stay, revision 

and re-treatment of procedures. 

The RANZCO has developed a list of clinical indicators that relate to safety. These include: 

• wrong operation on correct eye 

• operation on the wrong eye 

• penetration or perforation of globe during periocular injections 

• expulsive haemorrhage during surgery 

• endophthalmitis following surgery 

• patient collapse requiring resuscitation during surgery 

• death. 

Through the consultations, many providers advised that all ophthalmology units carry 

out clinical audits, and there is a strong tradition in ophthalmology of practitioners selfregulating 

their own scope of practice. It was suggested ophthalmologists usually only 

perform procedures for which they have been trained. 

Providers consider that new models of care in particular should be subject to strict audit. 

One submission noted, however, that as surgical complication rates are so low it is difficult 

to determine the impact of any new model of care. Many providers suggested that 

resources for audit need to be identified and quarantined. 

4.7 Information management 

A performance monitoring system ensures accountability for the efficient and effective 

use of resources and involves developing meaningful performance measures, data 

collection systems, reporting requirements and mechanisms. A system would include 

a range of clinical and non-clinical performance measures that would be monitored at 

a local, regional and statewide level. 

Some ophthalmology management measures are already collected by health services, 

such as waiting times for elective surgery and activity data. Patient outcomes measures 

are not routinely collected by health services and require development. These would 

include monitoring the appropriateness, acceptability, safety and effectiveness of 

ophthalmology clinical interventions. Many Victorian hospitals involved in the ACHS 

EQuIP accreditation report clinical indicator data to the ACHS. However, ACHS indicator 

data is not routinely reported to State Governments.


As discussed in previous sections, there is considerable stakeholder support for audit 

and outcome monitoring. There is general stakeholder support to develop information 

management systems, to enable collection and use of performance data and to assist 

with the delivery of quality care. It was also suggested that data should be collected on 

consumer satisfaction relating to service provision and client care. 

Some providers actively support statewide monitoring of outcomes or a statewide 

database for ophthalmology services. Most expressed no specific objection to this 

concept. Many providers suggested that the RVEEH could have a central role in data 

collection and management. 

The development and operation of a performance monitoring system will require the 

involvement of clinicians, professional colleges and associations and hospitals and 

health services. 


8.Develop a performance monitoring system for ophthalmology management 

and patient outcomes. 

4.8 Competence, education and research 

Since the mid-1990s, various workforce studies have been undertaken into the supply 

of eye health care professions in Australia. These studies examined existing workforce 

numbers and projected workforce requirements, taking into account forecast demand 

for services. In general, these studies found there was an adequate supply of eye care 

professionals. 

Table 11 provides a summary of the workforce profiles for each eye professional group. 

While the data are not current for all groups and are not provided for the same year, this 

table shows that there are more than 1,000 eye care professionals working in Victoria 

(excluding GPs).


Table 11: Workforce profiles of eye care professionals 

Ophthalmologists Orthoptists Optometrists 

Ophthalmic 

nurses 

1996 AMWAC 2003 RANZCO 2001 1998-99 2003 

No. practising 

Nationally 675 - 434 2,786 - 

Victoria 173 168 165 684 54 

Gender/Age 

Male 148 (87%) 142 (85%) 5 (3%) 400 (58%) 0% 

Female 19 (13%) 26 (15%) 160 (97%) 284 (42%) 100% 

Average age (yrs) 48%


The previous 24 training positions in Victoria was consistent with recommendations 

of the 1996 Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee (AMWAC) study, which 

recommended an increase in Victorian training posts from 22 in 1995 to 23 by 2002 

and 25 by 2006. 

An ophthalmology workforce study is being undertaken by RANZCO and is due for 

completion late in 2005-06. Some ophthalmologists believe that the numbers of registrar 

positions will have to be increased as a result of the new training system, while others 

believe that the current eye care workforce will be adequate given changes in models 

of care and the advent of therapeutic optometry. 

Orthoptists 

Undergraduate training for orthoptists in Victoria is provided by the School of Orthoptics, 

Latrobe University. Orthoptic clinical training occurs in the public and private sectors with 

the RVEEH being the largest provider of clinical placements. 

A draft report of the orthoptist workforce by the National Rural and Remote Allied Health 

Advisory Service (2003) concluded that employment prospects for orthoptists to 2007–08 

were strong. 

Optometrists 

The Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, provides 

a four-year course in optometry leading to the degree of Bachelor of Optometry. It also 

provides a range of postgraduate qualifications in optometry. Clinical training is supported 

by the VCO which operates the VES. 

In 1999, the AIHW undertook a study of trends in the optometrist labour force for the 

period 1991 to 1999. Based on an extrapolation of current trends, the AIHW study found 

that there appears to be no evidence of a projected shortage of optometrists to 2009, 

nor of significant excess supply. 

Nurses 

The RVEEH provides accredited training in ophthalmic nursing in association with the 

School of Nursing, Deakin University. While there are currently no ophthalmic specific 

nurse practitioners in Victoria, the Australian Ophthalmic Nurses Association Victoria is 

exploring opportunities to develop this role and have suggested anaesthetics and theatre 

as potential areas for consideration. 

The RVEEH provides training in ophthalmology for medical students and clinical training 

in ocular therapeutics for undergraduate optometry students. 

Stakeholder views 

The Victorian training scheme for ophthalmologists, optometrists and orthoptists is 

recognised almost universally by providers and consumers to be of very high quality, 

with excellent outcomes.


The quality of medical student training in ophthalmology was not as highly regarded. 

Some ophthalmologists suggested that there may be different approaches by medical 

schools, and given that ophthalmology is an important component of general practice, 

its focus in the undergraduate curriculum should be reviewed. 

Generally, the quality of training of emergency physicians is considered high. However, 

there are opportunities for enhancement and stakeholders felt that emergency specialists 

should be encouraged to complete an ophthalmology module in their training. 

It was suggested by consumers that training for optometry and ophthalmology students 

and practitioners should equip them to appreciate the needs and issues of people living 

on low incomes. The need to develop students’ and practitioners’ competencies in 

understanding social justice, equity issues and cross cultural communication was 

also raised. 

It was suggested by providers that there may be opportunities to share training between 

the professions, and such approaches would be supported in principle as a means of 

promoting more effective, cross-disciplinary approaches to eye care. 

The critical mass of patients and trainees at the RVEEH is seen as a key success factor 

in training, although some consider that the quality of training could be sustained without 

continuing the existing concentration of resources at the RVEEH. It is important to 

maintain services in general hospitals to ensure appropriate disbursement of training 

opportunities for other non-ophthalmological staff. 

There is support for ophthalmology training to continue to be coordinated by RANZCO 

and the RVEEH, with support from other hospitals. Many ophthalmologists suggested, 

however, that ophthalmologists are being over-trained in cataract surgery and undertrained 

in procedures for other conditions because advanced trainees and Fellows are 

receiving priority access to non-cataract training opportunities. 

There was some support for training of ophthalmologists in the private sector. 

Perceived problems with training in the private sector include medico-legal liability 

and patient consent. 

The Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) has established a Medical 

Specialist Training Taskforce to review and advise on specialist training issues at a national 

level, which includes a review of trainee needs, training environments and a range of 

governance and structural issues. The outcomes of this review may inform some of the 

issues raised in relation to ophthalmology registrars. 

It was noted that there are existing effective collaborative public/private models in which 

surgical training is undertaken in the public system and follow-up and outpatient work and 

training are undertaken in private settings. For example, in Albury-Wodonga, ophthalmic 

registrars work in private rooms of the Albury Eye Clinic where they provide a public 

service for the Albury Base Hospital (ABH). They have operating schedules at the ABH and 

Wodonga District Hospital, and attend community clinics for low vision and developmental 

disability. An evaluation of this model in 1996 found it to be highly effective, offering a new 

direction in rural specialist training (Neverauskas & Mollison, 1996).


It was noted that a significant proportion of training in orthoptics is currently provided 

in the private sector. Privatisation of public outpatient facilities has the potential to 

seriously affect training and would need to be accompanied by compensatory training 

opportunities. 

It was also generally agreed that there is underexposure of trainees to rural areas and 

there is support in principle for the creation of more rural training posts. There may be 

opportunities to collaborate with the rural clinical schools. 

Research 

Eye research in Victoria 

There is a range of organisations that contribute to eye care research in Victoria. CERA, 

established in 1996, is a joint undertaking of the University of Melbourne, RVEEH, 

RANZCO, Ansell Ophthalmology Foundation, Lions Club of Victoria, Christian Blind Mission 

International, RVIB and Vision Australia Foundation. CERA is a higher education institution 

that incorporates the University of Melbourne, Department of Ophthalmology and is a 

World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre. CERA has extensive research experience 

in causes, prevention and cure of eye disease and, in particular, has undertaken large 

epidemiological studies, including the VIP. 

The Vision Cooperative Research Centre (Vision CRC), established in July 2003, is a 

collaboration of the world’s leading groups in eyecare and vision research, education 

and delivery. Vision CRC is a multinode centre, with its hub at dedicated premises at the 

University of New South Wales, Kensington Campus. Vision CRC participants comprise 

core, supporting and industry members. Core members include: 

• CERA 

• International Centre for Eyecare Education (Australia) 

• Institute for Eye Research (Australia) 

• LV Prasad Eye Institute (India). 

Vision CRC received a grant of $32 million over seven years and will conduct major 

programs in the areas of myopia, presbyopia, vision care delivery, business growth, 

professional and academic education. 

As well as the University of Melbourne, Department of Ophthalmology, other university 

departments that provide research into eye care are: 

• Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences of the University of Melbourne and its 

affiliated research organisations of the National Vision Research Institute of Australia 

and Clinical Vision Research Australia 

• School of Orthoptics, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University.


A number of eye related research groups are located at the RVEEH. These include: 

• CERA 

• Department of Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne 

• Lions Eye Bank 

• WHO Collaborating Centre for Prevention of Blindness 

• McComas Family Laboratory (Ophthalmology). 

It was suggested that the achievements of the University of Melbourne, Department 

of Ophthalmology and CERA, are partly due to their collocation with the RVEEH. 

The association between the university and the hospital is seen to be of great benefit 

to both parties. The concentration of staff and patients at a single site, which assists 

in recruiting research candidates, and promoting research by trainees and clinicians, 

is considered to be the major factor in driving high quality research and clinical care. 

In addition, there is the ability to access shared facilities. 

It was also suggested that there is not a single eye research centre of note globally 

that is not closely associated with a significant clinical service. A different point of view 

was that the trend in research is for national and international collaboration, and local 

collocation was of less importance. 

Most providers consider that the private sector has some role to play in research, 

but it is less than the public sector. 

4.9 Consumer involvement 

Providers agreed that consumers need much more information about referral pathways, 

models of care, treatment choices and choice of election as a public or private patient. 

While the choice to elect as a public or private patient is currently left almost exclusively 

to decision making between the patient and ophthalmologist, many providers considered 

that the public system has a responsibility to ensure appropriate information is available. 

Compared with the way in which people spoke of their GP, optometrist and other 

health professionals, indications were that ophthalmologists, who in many cases were 

seen only infrequently compared with other health professionals, were perceived to be 

somewhat remote and rather unapproachable. Hence, patients tended to not question the 

information or treatment prescribed to them, and rarely any expectations of a personal 

and open relationship with their opthalmologist. 

Consumers admitted they were reluctant to question ophthalmology professionals, 

particularly ophthalmologists, as they were with other medical specialists. This appeared 

partly due to the deference with which most specialists are regarded, as well as a lack of 

knowledge regarding what questions to ask. The reluctance to ask for information applied 

not only to their condition and its potential longer-term implications, but also treatment 

options, fees and what alternatives are available to them.


However, indications were that the reluctance to question ophthalmologists was changing. 

Many people in the groups claimed to be much more proactive in seeking information 

from them: 

‘Unless you ask they don’t tell you what you’re entitled to’ … ‘I believe that 

you’re entitled to it. I didn’t for a few years. I was very nervous and that and 

then all of a sudden I started asking questions you know and they’d look 

at me …’ 

Those who had done so often found they had a number of options available to them, which 

they would have been unaware of if they had taken the information provided at face value, 

or not questioned the specialist. 

‘I was sent to the specialist for a test who sort of gave me a list of prices that 

it was going to cost me and I think he must have seen my face fall and he said 

‘oh but then you can go to a public hospital’ and I said okay and that cost me 

nothing…’ 

A few consumers voiced the view, based on their experiences, that younger 

ophthalmologists were more approachable, more friendly, more willing to spend time 

explaining things to their patients, and more inclined to involve them in the treatment 

decision making process. 

The department supports a range of initiatives that promote and support consumer 

involvement in decision making about their own treatment and care, in service 

development and quality improvement and, more broadly, in health policy developments. 

The department will be working with hospitals, their consumers and the broader 

community to develop a consumer participation policy to guide and articulate the 

responsibilities and expectations of consumer participation in hospitals. 

The work of the Vision Initiative will contribute to improved consumer participation in their 

care through consumer and provider education of eye care.


4.10 Governance and leadership 

Strong leadership is the foundation of a safe and high quality service system. Leadership 

and accountability for access, efficiency and performance currently rests mainly with 

individual hospitals. It is generally agreed by stakeholders that the department, hospitals 

and health care professionals have a shared interest and responsibility to ensure optimal 

use of resources within the system, and that leadership capability needs to be developed 

with more system-wide goal setting and accountability. It was agreed that governance 

arrangements could be instituted at a regional and/or statewide level. 

It was suggested that health services should provide eye care as part of their core 

requirements. A review of the care model and outcomes that each group sets up should 

be built into the system with system-wide peer review being an integral part of the 

governance model. 

It was noted that more system-wide leadership from the RVEEH would be welcome, 

including leading education, formalised support arrangements, academic and service 

leadership and support with coordinating the care of individuals. Maintaining independent 

governance of the RVEEH was specifically mentioned by some providers as being vital 

to the protection of the specialty. 

Many providers agree that access and elective surgery management should be coordinated 

across the public system, and that the achieving performance objectives should be 

monitored at a local level and possibly also at a regional or central level. 

Statewide leadership for public ophthalmology service provision is required to: 

• lead the evaluation and timely adoption of new models of care 

• lead the development, evaluation and adoption of new workforce models 

• lead the development of systems to monitor appropriateness, effectiveness and safety 

of interventions 

• provide direction on appropriate referral pathways between the community and public 

health services 

• support coordination of access and elective surgery management across the public 

system 

• support coordination of education and multi-centre research 

• have significant local input from rural and metropolitan providers. 

The RVEEH will play a key role in system-wide leadership. 

There is a view that the Commonwealth Government also has a national leadership role 

in ensuring that the planning, funding, monitoring and delivery of eye health services in 

every state is accessible to all people living on low incomes. 


9. Develop a capacity for statewide leadership in public ophthalmology service 

provision to provide ongoing direction in models of care, education and support 

systems for service providers.


5. Implementation plan 

The department will coordinate the framework’s implementation in collaboration with key 

stakeholders to ensure it is consistent and achieves the recommended system changes. 

A number of recommendations relate to existing programs that are funded by the 

department, such as the Vision Initiative, funded through Public Health, and the VES, 

funded through the Aged Care Branch. Other recommendations are consistent with a 

range of departmental strategies and align with the work of specific program areas such 

as the Hospital Demand Management strategy, the MHS, and the Better Skills, Best Care 

workforce design strategy. 

While each of the relevant areas of the department has been consulted in the 

development of the framework, further work is required to progress implementation 

of recommendations. 

5.1 Health service strategic plans and statement of priorities 

The development of strategic plans by each public health service, as recommended in 

the MHS, will provide an agreed basis for action between the department and each public 

health service, and will guide the future provision of services across health services. 

The strategic plans will define the role of each campus for a five-year period. The plans 

will be updated annually and included in the statement of priorities, which is a key 

accountability agreement between each public health service and the Minister for Health 

covering the shared objectives of services, finance, quality and investment for the future. 

The strategic plans and the statement of priorities will provide an opportunity for the 

department to negotiate with each health service on the type and level of services it 

provides. 

Table 12 provides an outline of the implementation plan for the framework indicating key 

responsibilities, timeframes and measures of success.


5.2 Implementation plan 

Table 12: Implementation plan 

Strategy Detail Responsibility Timeframe 7 Quality dimension Measure of success 

Ensure consistent and equitable 

service access 

Develop and implement guidelines 

and practices 

DHS 

Heath services 

Professional bodies 

Short term Service access is streamlined 

and equitable 

Improve and promote access 

to low cost glasses 

Increase provision, distribution and 

awareness of the availability of low 

cost glasses 

DHS 

VCO 

Short-medium term Access 

Efficiency 

Low cost glasses are accessible 

and affordable. 

Improve eye health promotion 

and education 

Support and evaluate the Vision 

Initiative 

DHS 

Vision Initiative 

Medium term Access 

Appropriateness 

Acceptability 

Consumers and providers are aware of 

requirements for eye care services and how 

to access them 

Establish primary and secondary 

services in nominated public 

hospitals 

Develop agreements with health 

services on service provision through 

health service strategic plans. 

Determine the roles of regional 

centres in coordination and provision 

of services. 

DHS 

Health services 

Medium term Access Establishment of agreed range of services 

with health services. 

Develop and implement 

role of RVEEH 

Service and capital planning for 

RVEEH. Develop agreement with 

RVEEH through its Strategic Plan 

Service Plan. 

DHS 

RVEEH 

Short-medium term 

Long term (capital 

redevelopment) 

All Service planning for future role and location 

of RVEEH completed and implemented. 

Models of care Develop, implement and evaluate 

new models of care 

DHS 



Medium-long term Appropriateness 

Efficiency 

Access 

Development, evaluation and implementation 

of models of care 

Elective surgery centres (ESC) Identify options for increased 

utilisation of ESCs 

DHS 


Medium-long term Access 

Efficiency 

High proportion of eye surgery performed 

in ESCs 

Establish and/or expand 

new workforce models 

Pilot and evaluate innovative 

workforce projects that make optimal 

use of existing workforce skills and 

explore expanded roles for existing 

professions 

DHS 



Medium-long term Access 


Efficiency 

Development, evaluation and implementation 

of new workforce models in line with care 

models 

Develop statewide leadership 

in public service provision 

Determine appropriate governance, 

structure and funding 

DHS, RVEEH 



Short-medium term All Leadership capacity developed with clear 

roles and responsibilities 

Develop funding models that 

support the system structure 

Review of current system and identify 

alternative models 

DHS 



Short-medium term Access 

Efficiency 

Funding supports the system structure 

and models of care 

Develop a performance 

monitoring system 

Develop agreed performance 

measures, definitions and reporting 

DHS, consumers 



Medium term All System performance is monitored and 

managed at all levels 

7 Time scale is 2004 to 2016: short term = 0–2 years, medium term = 2–6 years, long term = 6–12 years


Appendices 

1. Ophthalmology Service Planning Advisory 

Committee membership 

Name 

Ms Noreen Dowd (Chair) 

Ms Shirley Admans 

Dr Jenny Bartlett 

Ms Anna Burgess 

Mr Jim Doumtses 

Dr Robert Grogan 

Dr Anthony Hall 

Mr Andrew Harris 

Ms Melanie Hendrata 

Dr Jamie La Nauze 

Dr John McKenzie 

Mr Tim Puyk 

Professor Hugh Taylor 

Ms Robyn Wallace 

Title/organisation 

Director, Programs Branch, Metropolitan Health and Aged Care 

Services, Department of Human Services 

Consumer representative (Vision Australia Foundation) 

Chief Clinical Advisor, Office of Chief Clinical Advisor, 

Metropolitan Health and Aged Care Service, Department 

of Human Services 

Manager, Service Planning, Programs, Metropolitan Health 

and Aged Care Service, Department of Human Services 

Hospital Demand Management, Metropolitan Health Service 

Relations Branch, Metropolitan Health and Aged Care Service, 

Department of Human Services 

Chief Medical Officer, RVEEH 

RANZCO, Victorian Branch 

Optometrists’ Association Australia (OAA) 

Senior Project Officer, Service Development Unit, Rural and 

Regional Health Services, Department of Human Services 

RANZCO, Victorian Branch 

Chairman, RANZCO, Victorian Branch 

President, Australian Ophthalmic Nurses Association, 

Inc (AONA) 

Director, Ophthalmology, RVEEH 

Orthoptic Association of Australia (OAA) 

Project team 

Ms Kerri Martin 

Manager, 

Statewide Services Planning Unit 

Programs Branch, 

Metropolitan Health and Aged Care Service, 


Mr Stephen Gow 

Manager, 

Southern Planning Unit 

Mr James Henshall 

Project Officer 

Ms Zoe Aho 

Project Officer 

Ms Rachel Flottman 

Project Officer


2. Terms of reference for the Victorian ophthalmology service 

planning framework 

Consider and provide recommendations on issues associated with the delivery of 

ophthalmology services provided by the Victorian public health system, including: 

• utilisation 

• demand and access to services 

• service configuration 

• relationships between service providers 

• workforce and training 

• monitoring and evaluation of outcomes 

• specific needs of patients in rural areas 

• consideration of the interfaces with issues related to primary prevention and research. 

The review process will include: 

• interpretation of projections for ophthalmology services as provided by the department 

from the Victorian Inpatient Forecasting Model, along with other available data, and 

consider the implications of these on service provision 

• examining trends in clinical practice, new technology and approaches to care that have 

potential impact on future demand for and delivery of services 

• consultation with key stakeholders. 

Expected deliverables include: 

• a service planning framework for the provision of ophthalmology services in Victoria 

which describes models of care and considers equity of access, promotes efficient and 

appropriate utilisation of services; is responsive to changes in need and clinical and 

technology advances; and specifies criteria to evaluate and monitor the quality and 

performance of services.


3. List of responses to the discussion paper 

Ms Maree Bowman 

Ms Maxine Brockfield 

Dr Anne Brooks 

Dr Adrian Bruce 

Ms Heather Byrne 

Dr W G Campbell 

Confidential 

Confidential 

Confidential 

Confidential 

Dr Tony Cull 

Dr John Elcock 

Assoc Prof Ian Favilla 

Ms Nicole Feely 

Assoc Prof Kerry Fitzmaurice 

Mr Jim Fletcher 

Dr Michelle Gajus 

Mr Zoran Georgievski 

Dr W E Gillies 

Dr Ken Gullifer 



Dr Alex Harper 

Mr Ben Harris 

Dr Trevor Hodson 

Mr Graeme Houghton 

Dr Robert Hudson 

Dr Nicholas Karunaratne 

Ms Serena Lillywhite 

Dr Patrick Lockie 

Dr David Mackey 


Professor Neville McBrien 

Ms Kathy Meleady 

Mr Michael Murphy 

Ms Carly Nicholls 

Assoc Prof Justin O’Day 

Ms Gillian Perriment 

Dr D Polya 

Mr John Purvis 

Ms Alex Rankin 

Dr Marc Sarossy 

Dr Mark Scott 

Dr Richard Stawell 

Professor Hugh Taylor AC 

Mr John Turner 

Ms Pat Usher/Mr Tim Puyk 

Dr Arlene Wake 


Dr Robert West 

State Manager, Department of Health and Ageing 

Director of Clinical Services, Kyabram & District Health Services 

Ophthalmologist-in-Charge. General Eye Clinic 3, RVEEH 

Senior Optometrist, Victorian College of Optometry 

Chief Executive Officer, Alexandra District Hospital 

Head, Vitreo-Retinal Unit, RVEEH 

Ophthalmology Registrar 

Orthoptist 



Executive Director Medical Services, Royal Children’s Hospital 

Director of Medical Services, Northeast Health, Wangaratta 

Head of Ophthalmology, Southern Health 

Chief Executive Officer, St Vincent’s Health 

Chair, Australian Orthoptic Board 

Chief Executive Officer, Western District Health Service 

Ophthalmology Registrar, RVEEH 

Orthoptic Association of Australia (Vic Branch) 


Director of Ophthalmology, Austin Health 

Chairman, QEC, RANZCO 

Head of Ophthalmology, Royal Melbourne Hospital 

Ophthalmologist-in-Charge, Medical Retina Clinic, RVEEH 

Executive Director, Optometrists’ Association Australia (Vic Div) 

Ophthalmologist, Mt Gambier 

Chief Executive Officer, RVEEH 

General and Paediatric Ophthalmologist 

Ophthalmologist, Albury (Wodonga) Eye Clinic 

Manager Ethical Business, Brotherhood of St Laurence 

Ophthalmologist, St John of God Hospital, Geelong 


Chairman, Victorian Branch, RANZCO 

Director, Victorian College of Optometry 

Director, Statewide Service Development Branch, NSW Health 

Director, Surgery and Surgical Services, St Vincent’s Health 

Chief Executive Officer, Vision 2020 Australia 

Ophthalmologist, St Vincent’s Medical Centre 

Chair, NorthEast Division of General Practice 

Ophthalmologist, RVEEH 

Acting Chief Executive, Bendigo Health Care Group 

Assistant Secretary, Acute Care Strategies Branch, Department of Health and Ageing 


Melbourne Specialist Imaging 

Head of Ocular Immunology Clinic, RVEEH 

Professor of Ophthalmology, RVEEH 

Chief Executive Officer, Bentleigh Bayside Community Health 

Australian Ophthalmic Nurses Association 

Executive Director, Medical Services, Western Health 

Orthoptic Association of Australia (Vic Branch) 

Ophthalmology Unit, Alfred Hospital


4. List of attendance at stakeholder consultation meetings 

Individuals and groups who participated in interviews 



Mr Ben Harris 

Dr James LeNauze 

Professor Neville McBrien 

Dr Richard Stawell/Dr Robert West 

Professor Hugh Taylor 

Dr Michael Toohey 

Members of Executive 

Regional Health Council 

Rural Health Council 

Victorian Branch Members 


Chairman, QEC, RANZCO 

Executive Director, Optometrists’ Association Australia (Vic Div) 

Rural Ophthalmologist 

Director, Victorian College of Optometry 

Ophthalmology Unit, The Alfred Hospital 

Centre for Eye Research Australia 

Regional Ophthalmologist 


Victorian Healthcare Association 

Victorian Healthcare Association 

RANZCO 

Workshop attendees 

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Monday 19 April 2004 

Mr Mitchell Anjou 

Clinical Director, Victorian College of Optometry 

Dr Anne Brooks 


Ms Lynn Cheetham 

Head of Treatment, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre 

Dr James Elder 

Head of Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Children’s Hospital 

Assoc Prof Kerry Fitzmaurice Chairman, Australian Orthoptic Board 

Mr Zoran Georgievski 

Chief Orthoptist, Northern Hospital 

Dr John Gioulekas 

Ophthalmologist, Berwick Ophthalmology Clinic 

Assoc Prof Robin Gymer 

Ophthalmologist, CERA 

Dr Alex Harper 

Head of Medical Retinal Clinic, RVEEH 

Mr Ben Harris 

Executive Officer, Optometrists’ Association Victoria 

Dr Kim Hill 

Executive Director Medical Services, Bayside Health 

Ms May Ho 

Optometrist, Victorian College of Optometry 

Mr Graeme Houghton 

Chief Executive Officer, RVEEH 

Dr Rob Hudson 

Head of Clinic, RVEEH 


Head of Ophthalmology, Western Health 

Ms Annette Mercuri 

Manager Strategic Planning and Development, 

Women’s and Children’s Health 

Assoc Prof Michael Murphy Director of Neurosurgery, St Vincent’s Health 

Ms Genevieve Napper 

Manager Clinic Public Health Services, 

Victorian College of Optometry 

Assoc Prof Justin O’Day 

Ophthalmologist, St Vincent’s Medical Centre 

Ms Sandra Staffieri 

Chief Orthoptist, Royal Children’s Hospital 

Dr David van der Straaten 

Registrar, RVEEH 


RVEEH 

Dr Robert West 

Ophthalmologist, Alfred Hospital 

Dr Geoffrey Williamson 

Director of Medical Services, Maroondah Hospital


Department of Human Services, Tuesday 20 April 2004 

Ms Shirley Admans 

Vision Australia Foundation 

Mr Richard Clark 

Vision 20-20 Australia 

Ms Emer Diviney 

Research and Policy Project Officer, Brotherhood of St Laurence 

Ms Jane Gallo 

General Manager Client Services, Vision Foundation Australia 

Ms Kate Giles 

President, Retina Australia 

Mr Patrick Moore 

President, Macular Vision Loss Support Society of Australia 

Mr Richard Rigby 

Vice President, Retina Australia 

Ms Catia Sicari 

Southern Australia Coordinator, Glaucoma Australia Inc. 

The Gables, Tuesday 20 April 2004 

Dr Andrew Atkins 


Ms Lin Cole 

RVEEH 

Ms Clare Douglas 

Director of Surgical Services, RVEEH 

Dr David Erlich 

Ophthalmic Surgeon, Bass Coast Regional Health 



Dr Ken Gullifer 

Head of Ophthalmology, Austin Health 

Dr Raj Pathmaraj 


Dr Julian Rait 

Ophthalmologist, Cabrini 

Ms Shelley Straw 

RVEEH 

Ms Malak Sukkar 

Project Business Manager, 

St Vincent’s and Mercy Private Hospital 

Dr Arlene Wake 

Executive Director Medical Services, Western Health 

Wangaratta Gateway, Monday 28 April 2004 

Ms Heather Byrne 

Chief Executive Officer/Director of Nursing, 

Alexandra District Hospital 

Mr Steve Carroll 


Dr Christopher Chesney 

Ophthalmologist, Bayside Ophthalmology 

Dr John Elcock 

Director of Medical Services, Northeast Health 

Dr Paul Giles 

Ophthalmologist, Wodonga Regional Health Services 

Dr Nicholas Karunaratne 

Ophthalmologist, Albury Eye Clinic 

Ms Nora Ley 

Chief Executive Officer, Seymour District Memorial Hospital 

Mr Andrew Watson 

Chief Executive Officer, Wodonga Regional Health Services 

Mr Dan Weeks 

Director of Nursing, Benalla District Hospital 

Ms Erica Williams 

Rural Management Resident, Victorian Healthcare Association


Ballarat Lodge, Monday 3 May 2004 

Ms Lisa Adair 

Nurse Unit Manager, Barwon Health 

Mr Damian Armour 

General Manager Surgical Services, Barwon Health 

Ms Rowena Clift 

Ballarat Health Services 

Mr Michael Delahunty 

Chief Executive Officer, Stawell Regional Health 

Dr John Ferguson 

Executive Director Medical Services, Ballarat Health Services 

Mr Hayden Lowe 

Access Coordinator and Manager Peri-operative Services, Geelong Hospital 

Mr Alex Mactier 

Director of Finance, Mt Alexander Hospital 

Dr David McKnight 


Dr Peter O’Brien 

Director of Medical Services, South West Health Care 

Ms Nicola Reinders 

Project Officer, Grampians Region 

Dr Michael Toohey 

Ophthalmologist, Ballarat Health Services 

Dr Bruce Warton 

Medical Director, Western District Health Service 

Century Inn Traralgon, Thursday 6 May 2004 

Mr Gary Gray 

Chief Executive Officer, Bairnsdale Regional Health 

Dr Robert Lazell 

Ms Janine Silvester 

Mr John Warren 

Ophthalmologist, LaTrobe Regional Hospital 

LaTrobe Regional Hospital 

Optometrist


5. Quality framework dimensions and organisational elements 

The following definitions are extracted from the Safety and Quality Framework (VQC, 2003), 

which describes the intersection between four critical organisational processes essential for 

quality improvement, and each of the six dimensions of quality, as well as describing related 

roles and responsibilities throughout the health system. 

Dimensions of quality 

Safety of health care 

Effectiveness of health care 

Appropriateness of health care 

Acceptability of health care 

Access to health services 

Efficiency of health service 

provision 

A major objective of any health care system should be the safe 

progress of consumers through all parts of the system. Harm 

arising from care, by omission or commission, as well as from 

the environment in which it is carried out, must be avoided and 

risk minimised in care delivery processes. 

Consumers of health services should be able to expect that 

the treatment they receive will produce measurable benefit. 

The effectiveness of health care relates to the extent to which 

a treatment, intervention or service achieves the desired 

outcome. 

It is essential that the interventions that are performed for 

the treatment of a particular condition are selected based on 

the likelihood that the intervention will produce the desired 

outcome for each patient. This means that the expected health 

benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a 

sufficiently wide margin that the procedure is worth doing. 

Essentially, the appropriateness of health care is about using 

evidence to do the right thing to the right patient, at the right 

time, avoiding over and under utilisation. 

Opportunities must be provided for health consumers to 

participate collaboratively with health organisations and service 

providers in health service planning, delivery, monitoring 

and evaluation at all levels in a dynamic and responsive way. 

Consumer and community participation should enhance the 

level of acceptability of services, which is the degree to which 

a service meets or exceeds the expectations of informed 

consumers. 

Health services should offer equitable access to health services 

for the population they serve on the basis of need, irrespective 

of geography, socio-economic group, ethnicity, age or sex. 

This includes availability of services, such as waiting times for 

services and processes involved in accessing services, physical 

and information access. The Victorian public health system, 

like others in Australia and internationally, is experiencing 

unprecedented and sustained increases in demand. The issue 

of access to all health services is a critical one. 

Health services must ensure that resources are utilised to 

achieve value for money. This can be achieved by focussing 

on minimising the cost combination of resource inputs in the 

production of a particular service as well as the allocation of 

resources to those services to provide the greatest benefit to 

consumers. Allocative efficiency informs decisions on what 

services or treatments to deliver, whereas technical efficiency 

is concerned with reducing costs and minimisation of waste.


Key organisational elements 

Governance, leadership 

and culture 

Corporate governance describes the structures and processes 

put in place by boards to fulfil their strategic, statutory and 

financial obligations. Clinical governance is a critical element of 

the corporate governance of health services. 

Clinical governance refers to boards’ accountability for ensuring 

that a framework and rigorous systems are established so health 

care safety and quality is monitored and supported, evaluated and 

continuously improved. 

Consumer and community 

involvement 

Competence of, and education 

to support, health care providers 

Information management 

and reporting 

Consumer involvement in health care is critical to effective service 

planning and evaluation and to the achievement of optimum care 

outcomes. There are many differing definitions of ‘consumers’ 

in health care. For the purposes of this document, the term 

‘consumer’ refers to people who either directly or indirectly make 

use of health services. This includes individuals receiving, or 

who have received, health care services, whether individuals or 

in groups according to similar backgrounds or health states. It 

also includes family and carers of those receiving health care. 

Community is described in this framework as the population 

served by the health service, including future users and the wider 

community that benefits from health care services. 

Competence is an overarching issue and a major priority for review 

and action in health services. This includes the competence of the 

organisation, the competence of multidisciplinary care teams and 

the competence of the individuals who deliver care and services. 

Information management refers to the collection of data, the 

technology required to do so, including the software and hardware, 

the reliability and validity of the data and how data are reported 

and converted into information to be used in practice. To support 

these processes, data and information should be available, 

accurate, timely and relevant. Ensuring this includes review of 

coding accuracy, robust data definitions and collection systems, 

and transparent analysis and reporting processes.


6. Statewide provision of ophthalmology services 2002–03 

Metropolitan 

VAED separations VEMD VACS 

Metropolitan health services 

Cataract 

procedures 

Other eye 

procedures 

Nonprocedural 

Emergency 

Outpatient 

encounters 

Austin Health 5,546 

Austin Hospital 9 49 43 417 

Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital 415 115 12 

Bayside Health 

The Alfred 216 55 104 502 3,507 

Sandringham & District 6 35 

Caulfield General Medical Centre 2 70 

Eastern Health 

Box Hill Hospital 14 41 368 

Maroondah Hospital* 279 37 31 625 

Angliss Hospital 4 28 949 

Melbourne Health 

Royal Melbourne Hospital 333 101 107 506 4,709 

Mercy Health and Aged Care 

Mercy Public Hospitals Inc [Werribee] 8 33 819 

Mercy Hospital for Women 267 

Northern Health 

Broadmeadows Health Service* 370 26 6 

The Northern Hospital 125 88 21 742 440 

Southern Health 

Cranbourne Integrated Care Centre 1,473 307 20 

Dandenong Hospital 19 56 678 

Monash Medical Centre [Clayton] 9 81 648 4,625 

Monash Medical Centre [Moorabbin] 15 99 12 

Peninsula Health 

Frankston Hospital 136 43 74 594 

Rosebud Hospital 8 23 354 

Continued next page


Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute 50 6 83 

Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital 8 5,394 3,630 298 17,192 62,775 

Royal Children’s Hospital [Parkville] 33 625 73 720 5,266 

Royal Women’s Hospital 1 11 92 

St Vincent’s Health 

St Vincent’s Hospital Ltd 28 50 110 3 

Western Health 

Sunshine Hospital 336 84 41 893 

Western Hospital [Footscray] 224 38 41 403 

Williamstown Hospital 7 1 2 544 

Other health services 

Kooweerup Regional Health Service 1 

O’Connell Family Centre Inc. 1 

Total public 9,365 5,445 1,242 27,412 87,046 

Total private 16,863 5,510 230 

Metro total 26,228 10,955 1,472 27,412 87,046 

8 RVEEH operates spoke services at Maroondah Hospital and Broadmeadow 

Health Service that include inpatient and outpatient services.


Rural 

VAED separations VEMD VACS 

Rural Health Services 

Cataract 

procedures 

Other eye 

procedures 

Nonprocedural 

ophthalmology 

Emergency 

presentations 

Outpatient 

encounters 

Alexandra District Hospital 2 

Alpine Health [Mount Beauty] 2 

Alpine Health [Myrtleford] 2 

Bairnsdale Regional Health Service 244 19 10 

Ballarat Health Services 323 127 29 1,314 864 

Barwon Health [Geelong] 714 182 89 827 2,882 

Bass Coast Regional Health [Wonthaggi] 235 44 9 

Beechworth Health Service 1 

Benalla & District Memorial Hospital 214 7 1 

Bendigo Health Care Group 275 106 22 874 688 

Central Gippsland Health Service [Sale] 87 26 13 

Cobram District Hospital 4 

Cohuna District Hospital 2 3 

Colac Area Health 11 2 7 

Coleraine District Health Services 1 

Djerriwarrh Health Service[Bacchus Marsh] 2 

Dunmunkle Health Services [Murtoa] 1 

East Grampians Health Service [Ararat] 81 27 2 

East Wimmera Health Service[Birchip] 1 

East Wimmera Health Service[Donald] 3 

East Wimmera Health Service[St Arnaud] 2 2 

East Wimmera Health Service[Wycheproof] 1 

Echuca Regional Health 67 75 4 390 

Edenhope & District Hospital 1 1 

Far East Gippsland Health/Support Service 1 

Gippsland Southern Health [Korumburra] 4 

Gippsland Southern Health [Leongatha] 99 29 17 

Goulburn Valley Health [Shepparton] 6 24 699 

Hepburn Health Service [Creswick] 1 

Hepburn Health Service [Daylesford] 2 

Continued next page


Inglewood & District Health Service 1 

Kerang District Health 28 9 1 

Kilmore & District Hospital 2 

Kyabram & District Health Service 50 3 6 

Kyneton District Health Service 1 1 

Latrobe Regional Hospital [Traralgon] 391 11 31 859 

Mansfield District Hospital 1 5 

Maryborough District Health 2 4 

Mount Alexander Hospital [Castlemaine] 216 17 4 

Moyne Health Services [Port Fairy] 1 

Nathalia District Hospital 1 

New Mildura Base Hospital 239 160 23 885 

Northeast Health Wangaratta 2 8 426 

Numurkah & District Health Service 2 2 

Otway Health & Community Services 1 

Portland & District Hospital 159 6 9 

Robinvale District Health Services 5 

Rochester & Elmore District Health Service 8 3 

Rural Northwest Health [Hopetoun] 1 

Rural Northwest Health [Warracknabeal] 2 

Seymour District Memorial Hospital 1 

South Gippsland Hospital [Foster] 1 1 

South West Healthcare [Camperdown] 1 3 

South West Healthcare [Warrnambool] 141 37 20 739 

Stawell Regional Health 70 11 

Swan Hill District Hospital [Swan Hill] 183 31 10 

Terang & Mortlake Health Service 2 

Timboon & District Healthcare Service 1 

Upper Murray Health/Community Services 2 

West Gippsland Healthcare 

Group[Warragul] 

19 6 4 

West Wimmera Health Service [Kaniva] 2 

West Wimmera Health Service [Nhill] 101 11 3 

Western District Health Service [Hamilton] 155 4 5 

Wimmera Base Hospital [Horsham] 174 40 11 576 

Wodonga Regional Health Service 180 41 9 

Yarram & District Health Service 2 

Yea & District Memorial Hospital 1 

Total rural public 4,456 1,065 444 7,589 4,434 

Total rural private 4,122 883 61 

Rural total 8,578 1,948 505 7,589 4,434 

Statewide total 34,806 12,903 1,977 35,001 91,480


7. Ophthalmology DRGs and ESRGs 1999–2000 to 2002-03 

Public and private separations (VAED) 

Separations 

ESRG DRG 99–00 00–01 01–02 02–03 % pa growth 

079-Cataract 

Procedures 

C08Z-Major Lens Procedures 23,938 27,369 29,050 31,380 7% 

C09Z-Other Lens Procedures 4,385 3,943 3,452 3,426 -6% 

079-Cataract Procedures Total 28,323 31,312 32,502 34,806 5% 

080-Other Eye 

Procedures 

C01Z-Procedures Penetrating 

Eye Injury 

C02Z-Enucleations & Orbital 

Procedures 

181 176 155 166 -2% 

204 194 207 231 3% 

C03Z-Retinal Procedures 1,708 1,692 1,858 1,919 3% 

C04Z-Maj Corneal, Scleral, 

Conjunctival Procs 

622 431 255 264 -19% 

C05Z-Dacryocrystorhinostomy 542 504 564 625 4% 

C06Z-Complex Glaucoma 

Procedures 

206 158 155 132 -11% 

C07Z-Other Glaucoma Procedures 954 945 748 778 -5% 

C10Z-Strabismus Procedures 929 861 901 828 -3% 

C11Z-Eyelid Procedures 2,525 2,540 2,759 2,856 3% 

C12Z-Oth Corneal, Scleral, 


1,133 1,247 1,350 1,462 7% 

C13Z-Lacrimal Procedures 577 559 567 559 -1% 

C14Z-Other Eye Procedures 2,514 2,753 2,866 3,083 5% 

080-Other Eye Procedures Total 12,095 12,060 12,385 12,903 2% 

081-Nonprocedural 

Ophthalmology 

C60A-Acute/Major Eye Infections 

Age>54 

C60B-Acute/Major Eye Infections 

Age


Public separations (VAED) 

Separations 

ESRG DRG 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 % pa growth 

079-Cataract 

Procedures 




080-Other Eye 

Procedures 

C01Z-Procedures Penetrating 

Eye Injury 

C02Z-Enucleations & Orbital 

Procedures 

158 160 142 156 0% 

135 132 157 160 4% 

C03Z-Retinal Procedures 1,187 1,176 1,208 1,293 2% 



121 159 137 125 1% 



Procedures 

164 122 133 117 -8% 


C10Z-Strabismus Procedures 679 600 573 533 -6% 

C11Z-Eyelid Procedures 1,064 950 1,031 1,088 1% 



519 491 539 607 4% 

C13Z-Lacrimal Procedures 379 349 349 323 -4% 




Ophthalmology 


Age>54 


Age


Private separations (VAED) 

Separations 

ESRG DRG 99–00 00–01 01–02 9 02–03 % pa growth 

079-Cataract 

procedures 




080-Other Eye 

Procedures 

C01Z-Procedures for Penetrating 

Eye Injury 

C02Z-Enucleations and Orbital 

Procedures 

23 16 13 10 -24% 

69 62 50 71 1% 

C03Z-Retinal Procedures 521 516 650 626 6% 



501 272 118 139 -35% 



Procedures 

42 36 22 15 -29% 


C10Z-Strabismus Procedures 250 261 328 295 6% 

C11Z-Eyelid Procedures 1,461 1,590 1,728 1,768 7% 



614 756 811 855 12% 

C13Z-Lacrimal Procedures 198 210 218 236 6% 




ophthalmology 


Age>54 


Age


8. Detailed ophthalmology forecasts 

Forecast growth of public and private ophthalmology ESRGs: 

separations and bed days 2001–02 to 2016–17, Victoria 

ESRG name 

Stay type 

2001- 

02 

2006- 

07 

2011 

-12 

2016 

-17 

% pa 

growth 

Cataract Procedures 

Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 29,287 39,244 48,368 58,110 4.7% 

Beddays 29,287 39,244 48,368 58,110 4.7% 

Separations 3,900 3,812 3,597 3,523 -0.7% 

Beddays 4,942 4,779 4,477 4,343 -0.9% 

Cataract Procedures Separations 33,187 43,056 51,965 61,633 4.2% 

Cataract Procedures Beddays 34,229 44,023 52,845 62,454 4.1% 

Other Eye Procedures 

Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 8,721 9,712 10,753 11,825 2.1% 

Beddays 8,721 9,712 10,753 11,825 2.1% 

Separations 3,868 3,526 3,278 3,105 -1.5% 

Beddays 6,656 5,766 5,161 4,723 -2.3% 

Other Eye Procedures Separations 12,589 13,238 14,031 14,931 1.1% 

Other Eye Procedures Beddays 15,377 15,478 15,914 16,548 0.5% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology 

Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 1,017 1,323 1,578 1,820 4.0% 

Beddays 1,017 1,323 1,578 1,820 4.0% 

Separations 1,051 984 969 961 -0.6% 

Beddays 3,821 3,461 3,283 3,144 -1.3% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology Separations 2,068 2,308 2,547 2,781 2.0% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology Beddays 4,838 4,785 4,861 4,965 0.2% 

Total Separations 47,844 58,602 68,543 79,345 3.4% 

Total Beddays 54,444 64,286 73,619 83,967 2.9% 

Total Multiday ALOS (days) 0.75 1.68 1.65 1.61 -0.6%


Forecast growth of public ophthalmology ESRGs: 

separations and bed days 2001–02 to 2016–17. Victoria 

ESRG name 

Stay type 

2001- 

02 

2006- 

07 

2011 

-12 

2016 

-17 

% pa 

growth 


Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 11,302 15,458 19,303 23,380 5.0% 

Beddays 11,302 15,458 19,303 23,380 5.0% 

Separations 1,574 1,563 1,476 1,445 0.6% 

Beddays 2,285 2,207 2,067 2,003 -0.9% 



Other Eye Procedures Day only Separations 3,685 4,037 4,402 4,788 1.8% 

Multiday 

Separations 2,413 2,206 2,057 1,950 -1.4% 

Beddays 4,682 3,943 3,540 3,242 -2.4% 

Other Eye Procs Seps (Total) 6,098 6,243 6,459 6,737 0.7% 

Other Eye Procs Beddays (Total) 8,367 7,980 7,942 8,030 -0.3% 

Other Eye Procs Multiday ALOS (days) 1.94 1.79 1.72 1.66 -1.0% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology Day only Separations 864 1,127 1,347 1,558 4.0% 

Multiday 

Separations 959 900 886 878 -0.6% 

Beddays 3,339 3,065 2,917 2,800 -1.2% 

Non-proc. Ophth. Seps (Total) 1,823 2,026 2,234 2,436 2.0% 

Non-proc. Ophth. Beddays (Total) 4,203 4,192 4,264 4,358 0.2% 

Non-proc. Ophth. Multiday ALOS (days) 3.48 3.41 3.29 3.19 -0.6% 

Total Sameday Separations 15,851 20,622 25,053 29,725 4.3% 

Total Multiday Separations 4,946 4,669 4,419 4,273 -1.0% 

Total Multiday Beddays 10,306 9,215 8,524 8,045 -1.6% 

Total Multiday ALOS (days) 2.08 1.97 1.93 1.88 -0.7% 


Total Beddays 26,157 29,837 33,577 37,771 2.5%


Forecast growth of private ophthalmology ESRGs: 

separations and bed days by SRG 2001–02 to 2016–17, Victoria 

ESRG name 

Stay type 

2001- 

02 

2006- 

07 

2011 

-12 

2016 

-17 

% pa 

growth 


Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 17,985 23,786 29,064 34,730 4.5% 

Beddays 17,985 23,786 29,064 34,730 4.5% 

Separations 2,326 2,249 2,122 2,078 -0.7% 

Beddays 2,657 2,573 2,410 2,340 -0.8% 



Other Eye Procedures 

Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 5,036 5,675 6,350 7,038 2.3% 

Beddays 5,036 5,675 6,350 7,038 2.3% 

Separations 1,455 1,320 1,221 1,156 -1.5% 

Beddays 1,974 1,823 1,621 1,481 -1.9% 

Other Eye Procedures Separations 6,491 6,995 7,571 8,194 1.6% 

Other Eye Procedures Beddays 7,010 7,498 7,971 8,519 1.3% 

Non-procedural 

Ophthalmology 

Day only 

Multiday 

Separations 153 197 231 263 3.7% 

Beddays 153 197 231 263 3.7% 

Separations 92 85 83 82 -0.7% 

Beddays 482 396 366 344 -2.2% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology Separations 245 281 314 345 2.3% 

Non-procedural Ophthalmology Beddays 635 593 597 607 -0.3% 


Total Beddays 28,287 34,449 40,042 46,196 3.3% 

Total Multiday ALOS (days) 1.32 1.31 1.28 1.26 -0.3%


9. Estimated resident population 2003 and 2016 

Metropolitan Melbourne 

Region 2003 2016 % pa growth 

Northern and Western 

Banyule 119,603 120,045 0.03% 

Brimbank 173,318 187,091 0.59% 

Darebin 129,375 130,477 0.07% 

Hobson’s Bay 84,610 90,317 0.50% 

Hume 143,468 184,115 1.94% 

Maribyrnong (C) 63,464 72,508 1.03% 

Melbourne 59,390 100,659 4.14% 

Melton 64,149 120,200 4.95% 

Moonee Valley 111,298 112,100 0.06% 

Moreland 138,585 145,781 0.39% 

Nillumbick 61,150 63,015 0.23% 

Whittlesea 124,448 175,219 2.67% 

Wyndham 95,480 159,935 4.05% 

Yarra 69,896 76,023 0.65% 

Total 1,438,234 1,737,485 1.46% 

Eastern 

Boroondara 158,659 160,628 0.09% 

Knox 150,483 157,469 0.35% 

Manningham 116,297 131,113 0.93% 

Maroondah 102,167 114,871 0.91% 

Monash 165,532 172,029 0.30% 

Whitehorse 147,361 147,286 0.00% 

Yarra Ranges 144,701 149,193 0.24% 

Total 985,200 1,032,589 0.36% 

Southern 

Bayside 91,560 101,954 0.83% 

Cardinia 49,878 93,823 4.98% 

Casey 196,901 268,533 2.42% 

Frankston 116,794 127,758 0.69% 

Glen Eira 125,251 131,348 0.37% 

Greater Dandenong 128,997 130,438 0.09% 

Kingston 137,177 142,783 0.31% 

Mornington Peninsula 137,741 167,318 1.51% 

Port Phillip 86,365 107,461 1.70% 

Stonnington 92,372 98,145 0.47% 

Total 1,163,036 1,369,561 1.27% 

Total – Metropolitan 3,586,470 4,139,635 1.11%


Rural Victoria 


Barwon/South-Western 

Colac-Otway 21,204 21,842 0.23% 

Corangamite 17,407 16,445 -0.44% 

Glenelg 20,065 18,718 -0.53% 

Greater Geelong 198,662 221,938 0.86% 

Moyne 15,539 14,475 -0.54% 

Queenscliff 3,257 3,181 -0.18% 

Southern Grampians 16,978 15,945 -0.48% 

Surf Coast 21,686 26,121 1.44% 

Warrnambool 30,459 32,963 0.61% 

Total 345,257 371,628 0.57% 

Grampians 

Ararat 11,660 11,263 -0.27% 

Ballarat 85,910 98,754 1.08% 

Golden Plains 15,554 17,461 0.89% 

Hepburn 14,757 16,900 1.05% 

Hindmarsh 6,376 5,565 -1.04% 

Horsham 18,818 19,746 0.37% 

Moorabool 25,762 30,460 1.30% 

Northern Grampians 13,056 12,551 -0.30% 

Pyrenees 6,620 6,248 -0.44% 

West Wimmera 4,734 4,033 -1.23% 

Yarriambiack 8,002 6,914 -1.12% 

Total 211,249 229,895 0.65% 

Loddon-Mallee 

Buloke 7,074 6,404 -0.76% 

Campaspe 36,989 41,388 0.87% 

Central Goldfields 13,101 13,416 0.18% 

Gannawarra 11,875 10,861 -0.68% 

Greater Bendigo 92,883 107,106 1.10% 

Loddon 8,455 7,733 -0.68% 

Macedon Ranges 39,066 46,785 1.40% 

Mildura 50,361 57,088 0.97% 

Mount Alexander 17,414 19,181 0.75% 

Swan Hill 21,628 22,515 0.31% 

Total 298,846 332,477 0.82%



Hume 

Alpine 13,198 14,602 0.78% 

Benalla 9,250 9,435 0.15% 

Greater Shepparton 59,419 67,509 0.99% 

Indigo 14,848 15,723 0.44% 

Mansfield 12,095 14,243 1.27% 

Mitchell 29,990 38,716 1.98% 

Moira 27,279 29,830 0.69% 

Murrindindi 13,806 14,823 0.55% 

Strathbogie 9,725 10,041 0.25% 

Towong 6,157 5,601 -0.73% 

Wangaratta 26,747 27,440 0.20% 

Wodonga 33,289 39,614 1.35% 

Total 255,803 287,577 0.90% 

Gippsland 

Bass Coast 26,857 33,585 1.73% 

Baw Baw 37,289 42,512 1.01% 

East Gippsland 39,746 41,704 0.37% 

La Trobe 71,795 76,257 0.46% 

South Gippsland 26,835 30,193 0.91% 

Wellington 41,157 40,013 -0.22% 

Total 243,679 264,264 0.63% 

Total - Rural 1,354,834 1,485,841 0.71% 

Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment, Estimated Resident Population and Interim 

Population Projections, 2004. State Government of Victoria. www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/knowyour.nsf


10. Key performance indicators suggested by stakeholders 

General 

Many stakeholders supported: 

• indicators already endorsed by the RANZCO 

• ‘ACHS indicators relevant to ophthalmology’ 

• indicators ‘already collected by the RVEEH and reported to the Department 

of Human Services’. 

RANZCO indicators 

Current RANZCO indicators are as follows: 

• wrong operation on correct eye 

• operation on the wrong eye 

• penetration or perforation of globe during periocular injections 

• expulsive haemorrhage during surgery 

• endophthalmitis following surgery 

• patient collapse requiring resuscitation during surgery 

• death 

• ‘open’ category for incidents causing concern among staff for whatever reason 

• unplanned return to the operating theatre within 28 days of surgery for treatment 

of the same eye 

• unplanned readmission to an eye unit within 28 days of surgery for treatment 

of the same eye 

• unplanned transfer or referral of patients to other ophthalmic units within 2 

8 days of surgery.


Other suggested indicators 

Safety 

• posterior capsule rupture rates 

• complications of surgery and anaesthetic 

• postoperative infection 

• unplanned overnight stays 

• risk management strategies. 

Effectiveness 

• audit of cataract surgical outcomes at designated periods 

• functional measures of improved vision following procedures such as cataract 

• refractive outcomes in cataract surgery 

• change in VF-14 scores 

• best corrected acuity 

• variation in final refraction from predicted 

• target pressure achievement in glaucoma follow up 

• number of patients left in workforce. 


• best corrected visual activity 

• VF-14 survey 

• SF12v2 survey 

• A-scan and predicted refraction 

• co-morbidities ocular and general 

• patients cancelled 

• clinical pathway development for high volume procedures 

• number of post-op visits following cataract surgery. 

Acceptability 

• number of patients and families provided with appropriate information on diagnostic 

and treatment options 

• patient satisfaction (general, or relating to service provision, client care, paperwork 

and bureaucracy for individuals with special needs and their carers) 

• complaints monitoring.


Access 

• capture rate for screening for diabetic retinopathy 

• patient waiting lists for non-surgical appointments 

• waiting time to first appointment in outpatients 

• waiting time for procedures 

• surgical waiting lists 

• public/private care mix 

• number of culturally and linguistically diverse community members 

accessing both public and private ophthalmology services. 

Efficiency 

• numbers of patients attending for various services 

• patient activity, including casemix weighted activity and non-inpatient activity 

• patient throughput and waiting times 

• staffing 

• same day surgery rates 

• average length of stay 

• cost per casemix weighted inpatient, cost per outpatient occasion of service 

• operating theatre utilisation 

• ‘fail to attend’ rates 

• discharge rates.


Glossary of terms 

Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) 

The DRG classification system clusters patients into groups that are clinically meaningful 

and resource-use homogenous. The concept of clinical coherence requires that patient 

characteristics included in the definition of each DRG relate to a common organ system 

or aetiology (disease cause), and that a specific medical specialty should typically provide 

care to the patients in that DRG. 


Elective surgery is defined by the department as surgical care that, in the opinion 

of the treating clinician, is necessary and admission for which can be delayed for more 

than 24 hours. 

Emergency department presentation 

Emergency department presentation is the reporting unit of the Victorian Emergency 

Minimum Dataset (VEMD). An emergency department presentation should be reported 

for every patient who is triaged to one of the VEMD triage categories. Arrival date/ 

time indicates the commencement of an emergency department presentation, which 

concludes when the patient physically leaves the emergency department (departure 

date/time). 

Encounter 

The encounter is defined as an outpatient clinic visit, plus all ancillary services (pathology, 

radiology and pharmacy) provided within the 30 days either side of the clinic visit. The 

30-day window has been chosen to encompass the majority of services associated with 

a particular visit and to enable a reasonable and practical time period for reporting and 

funding. There are 47 clinical categories, all of which are weighted, except for allied health 

and emergency services. 

Hub and spoke 

A model of service delivery where highly specialised services are maintained at one or two 

locations (hubs), while high volume or lower complexity same day services will be provided 

by staff from the hub in distant locations, called spokes. The hub supplies the staff and 

pays the spoke only for the hire of facilities. 

Length of stay 

The Length of Stay (LOS) of an admitted patient is measured in patient days. A same day 

patient should be allocated a length of stay of one patient day. The length of stay of an 

overnight or multi-day stay patient is calculated by subtracting the admission date from 

the separation date and deducting total [normal] leave days. Total contracted patient days 

are included in length of stay.


Non-admitted patient 

A patient who does not undergo a hospital’s formal admission process. There are 

three categories of non-admitted patient: emergency department patient, outpatient, 

and other non-admitted patient (treated by hospital employees off the hospital site 

— includes community/outreach services). 

Overnight or multi-day stay patient 

A patient who, following a clinical decision, receives hospital treatment for a minimum of 

one night. That is, who is admitted to and separated from the hospital on different dates. 

Principal diagnosis 

The diagnosis established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning the 

patient’s episode of care in hospital (or attendance at the health care facility). 

Separation 

The process by which an episode of care for an admitted patient ceases. A separation 

may be a discharge from the hospital (patient transferred, goes home or dies) or a transfer 

of care type within the one hospital stay (episode changes from acute care to mental 

health or aged care). For this reason, the number of separations do not equal the number 

of patients. 

Statistical Local Area (SLA) 

The Statistical Local Area (SLA) of the patient’s usual residence. 

Stay type 

A clinical-complexity grading of DRGs (derived from DRGs): 

• primary 

• secondary 

• tertiary 

It must be noted that this is a complexity grading of the DRG not the hospital, so that 

the same coding can occur at a small rural hospital or a tertiary referral hospital.


Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED) 

The Department of Human Services collects morbidity data on all admitted patients from 

Victorian public and private acute hospitals, including rehabilitation centres, extended 

care facilities and day procedure centres. This data forms the Victorian Admitted Episodes 

Dataset (VAED, formerly VIMD). Among other things, VAED data are used for health 

services planning, policy formulation, casemix funding and epidemiological research. 

The VAED data collection also enables the Department of Human Services to meet 

the requirements of the Victorian Health Act 1958, which includes maintaining a 

comprehensive information system on: 

• the causes, effects and nature of illness among Victorians 

• the determinants of good health and ill health 

• the use of health services in Victoria. 

Victorian Ambulatory Classification and Funding System (VACS) 

VACS is a casemix based funding system for public outpatient services where hospitals 

are funded on the basis of patient encounters for medical and surgical services. 

WIES 

Weighted Inlier Equivalent Separation (WIES) is calculated using a formula of the weight 

assigned to each DRG, together with any co-payments or adjustments relevant to the 

episode. Hospitals are provided with acute service targets and actual acute throughput 

is measured in both separations and WIES. The WIES unit is used within the Acute program 

to assign monetary value to each separation. 

Waiting List 

A register that contains essential details about patients who require admission for 

elective care. Patients on waiting lists for elective care can be ‘ready for care’ or ‘not 

ready for care’.


References 

Access Economics (2004) Clear Insight – the Economic Impact and Cost of Vision 

Loss in Australia. 

Acosta, R, & Tuni, J (2002) ‘Bilateral Versus Unilateral Surgery for Age-related Cataract’ 

(Protocol for a Cochrane Review), in: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002. Chichester, UK: 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Alonso, J, Espallargues, M, Anderson, TF, Cassard, S.D, Dunn, E, Bernth-Petersen, 

P, Norregaard, JC, Black, C, Steinberg, EP and Anderson, GF (1997) ‘International 

Applicability of the VF-14: An Index of Visual Function in Patients with Cataracts’, 

in Ophthalmology, Vol 104, no 5, pp. 799–807. 

Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee (1996) The Ophthalmology Workforce 

in Australia – Supply, Requirements and Projections 1995–2006, AMWAC Report 1996.6. 

Busbee, BG, Brown, MM, Brown, GC, Sharma, S (2002) ‘Cost-utility Analysis of Cataract 

Surgery in the Second Eye’, Ophthalmology, Vol 109, no 3, pp. 606–12. 

Centre for Eye Research (2000), Eye Care for the Community, University of Melbourne, 

Melbourne. 

Department of Health and Ageing (2001) Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study, 

Australian Government, Canberra. 

Department of Human Services (2004) Public Hospitals and Mental Health Services: 

Policy and Funding Guidelines, 2004–05, Melbourne. 

Department of Human Services (2004) Subacute Ambulatory Care Services Framework, 

Melbourne. 

Department of Human Services (2003) Metropolitan Health Strategy: Directions for Your 

Health System, Melbourne. 

Department of Human Services (2000) Hospital Demand Management Strategy, 

Melbourne. 

Department of Premier and Cabinet (2001) Growing Victoria Together, Melbourne. 

Derrett, S, Paul, C, Herbison, P & Williams, H (2003) Evaluation of Explicit Prioritisation 

for Elective Surgery: Longitudinal Study, unpublished. 

Diviney, E & Lillywhite, S (2004) ‘Seeing Clearly: Access to Affordable Eyecare for Lowincome 

Victorians’, in Changing Pressures, Brotherhood of St Laurence, No. 13, June. 

Hamed, WW & Fedorowicz, Z (2004) ‘Day Care versus In-patient Surgery for Age-related 

Cataract’ (Cochrane Review), in: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 

Chichester. 

Keeffe, JE, LeAnn, MW, McCarty, CA & Taylor, HR (2002) ‘Utilisation of Eye Care Services 

by Urban and Rural Australians’ British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 86, pp. 24–27. 

Liou, H, McCarty, C, Jin, C & Taylor, HR (1999) ‘Prevalence and Predictors of 

Undercorrected Refractive Errors in the Victorian Population’, American Journal 

of Ophthalmology, Vol 127, no 5, pp. 590–596.


Madden, AC, Simmons, D, McCarty, CA, Khan, MA & Taylor, HR (2002) ‘Eye Health in Rural 

Australia’, in Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, Vol 30, pp. 316–321. 

Neverauskas, D & Mollison, W, (1996) Rural Specialist Service Delivery, an Evaluation of an 

Ophthalmic Training Model, Albury Wodonga. 

NSW Health (2002) Ophthalmology Clinical Service Plan for NSW, Boyd Health 

Management (September). 

Optometrists Registration Act (1996) 

Phillips Fox (2004) Victorian Ophthalmology Services: Report on Stakeholder 

Consultations (September). 

Pollard, TL, Simpson, JA, Lamoureux, EL & Keeffe, JK (2003) ‘Barrier to Accessing Low 

Vision Services’, Ophthal. Physiol. Opt, Vol. 23, pp. 321–327. 

Steinberg, EP (1995) Variations in Cataract Management: Patient and Economic Outcomes, 

The Johns Hopkins University. 

Tapp, RJ, Shaw, JE, Harper, CA, de Courten, MP, Balkau, B, McCarty, DJ, Taylor, HR, Welborn, 

TA, Zimmet, PZ and AusDiab Study Group (2003) ‘The Prevalence of and Factors 

Associated with Diabetic Retinopathy in the Australian Population’, in Diabetes Care. 

Vol 26, no 6, pp.1731–37, Jun. 

Taylor, HR (2000) ‘Cataract: How much surgery do we have to do?’ British Journal 

of Ophthalmology, Vol 84, pp. 1–2. 

Thiagalingam, S, Cumming, RG & Mitchell, P (2002) ‘Factors Associated with 

Undercorrected Refractive Errors in an Older Population: Blue Mountains Study’, 

in British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 86, no 9, pp. 1041–45. 

Tinley, CG, Frost, A., Hakin, KN, McDermott, W & Ewings, P (2003) ‘Is Visual Outcome 

Compromised when Next Day Review is Omitted After Phacoemulsification Surgery? 

A Randomised Controlled Trial’, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 87, pp. 1350–55. 

University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (1995) Relationship 

between Volume and Quality of Health Care: A Review of the Literature, pp. 1–34. 

York: University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 

Victorian Quality Council (2003) Better Quality, Better Health Care: A Safety and Quality 

Improvement Framework for Victorian Health Services, Melbourne. 

Vision 2020 (2003) National Eye Health Strategy, The Right to Sight Australia 

www.v2020australia.org/Publications/documents/NationalEyeHealthStrategyFinal8 

Feb02.pdf 

Western Canada Waiting List Project (2001) From Chaos to Order: Making Sense of 

Waiting Lists in Canada, Final report, Health Transition Fund, Health Canada. 

Wright, CJ & Robens-Paradise, Y (2001) Evaluation of Indications and Outcomes in Elective 

Surgery: A Feasibility Study in the Acute Care Hospitals of the Vancouver/Richmond 

Health Region, www.resio.org. 

Wu, G and Morrell, A (2001) ‘A Nationwide Survey of Post-Operative Instructions Following 

Uncomplicated Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery’, Eye, Vol 15: pp. 723–727.


Websites 

www.aihw.gov.au 

http:// bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7074/131 

www.budget.vic.gov.au 

www.medal.org/ch19.html 

www.wcwl.org/tools/cataract_surgery

Victorian ophthalmology service planning framework

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?