The Saturday Glaucoma Follow-Up
Dr. Vance, an Arkansas-licensed optometrist, is the only provider in a small Delta town. On a Saturday morning a 64-year-old established patient, Mr. H, presents with an intraocular pressure of 34 mmHg OD, a new superior arcuate scotoma on confrontation, and a cup-to-disc ratio of 0.85 with rim thinning. Mr. H has no history of glaucoma and is on no ocular medications. Dr. Vance's practice is open Saturdays but his collaborating relationship with the nearest ophthalmologist, 70 miles away, consists only of an informal verbal understanding that the ophthalmologist 'will see his patients if needed.' Dr. Vance has no written protocol and has never documented a consultation. He is scheduled to leave at noon for a family event.
1. Identify the scope-of-practice and standard-of-care issues raised by Dr. Vance's plan to diagnose and begin treating Mr. H's glaucoma that morning.
Read the worked answer
Arkansas optometrists may treat glaucoma, but the privilege is conditioned on compliance with the Board's rules on therapeutic certification and, where the Board's framework requires it, a documented collaborative or referral relationship for co-managed care.
Key issues:
- Scope is permitted, but the conditions matter. The Act authorizes glaucoma treatment by qualified optometrists; the question is whether Dr. Vance's certification, instrumentation, and follow-up capacity meet the Board's rule requirements.
- The 'informal understanding' is not a protocol. A verbal, undocumented arrangement with a distant ophthalmologist does not satisfy documentation or availability requirements. If a written protocol or co-management agreement is required for this modality, Dr. Vance is out of compliance.
- Standard of care. A new diagnosis of glaucoma with a 34 mmHg pressure and field loss is an urgent situation. Initiating therapy is defensible only with a documented baseline (gonioscopy, optic nerve imaging or photography, visual field), a treatment plan, and a reliable mechanism for urgent ophthalmologic consultation if the pressure does not respond.
- Abandonment risk. Leaving at noon without arranging coverage or urgent referral for a patient with a sight-threatening pressure is a professional-conduct problem independent of scope.
Conclusion: Dr. Vance likely may treat within scope, but he must first establish and document the required collaborative arrangement, complete the baseline workup, and arrange same-day or next-day ophthalmologic availability before he leaves.
2. Mr. H's pressure does not respond to the first drop, and Dr. Vance leaves at noon as planned. What reporting or disciplinary exposure does Dr. Vance face, and what should he have done?
Read the worked answer
Exposure:
- Grounds for discipline: failing to meet the standard of care, failing to maintain required collaborative documentation, and patient abandonment are each independently disciplinable. The Board can act on incompetence, negligence, and violation of Board rules.
- Reporting: if the patient suffers harm, the event may trigger a malpractice claim and, depending on the Board's rules, a reportable adverse event. The Board may also receive a complaint from the patient or another provider.
What he should have done:
- Before Saturday, have a written, signed collaborative protocol specifying the ophthalmologist, contact method, response time, and referral pathway.
- On Saturday, complete the baseline workup, initiate therapy, and either (a) keep the patient under observation until pressure is controlled, or (b) arrange same-day ophthalmologic evaluation.
- If he must leave, arrange documented coverage by another qualified provider and personally hand off Mr. H.
- Document everything contemporaneously, including the referral attempt and its outcome.