Care provision for poststroke XXXX .

@entity1 @entity227 @entity64
BACKGROUND: We sought to explore the care provision for poststroke @entity227 and variations in this in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Survey questions were developed and piloted with clinicians, academics, and users. Questions addressed types of visual problems; how these were identified, treated, and followed up; care pathways in use; links with other professions; and referral options. The survey was accessed via a Weblink, which was circulated through UK professional organizations to multiprofessional members of ophthalmic and @entity64 teams. RESULTS: A total of 548 completed electronic surveys were obtained. In all, 49.5% of respondents represented @entity64 teams, 42.5% eye teams, and 8% from other teams, for example, emergency care. Many respondents (41%) saw @entity1 within 1 week of @entity64 . Nineteen percent did not personally test vision: 11% had a visiting clinician to test vision, and 22% used screening tools. Validated tests were used for the assessment of visual acuity (39.5%), visual field (57.5%), eye movement (48.5%), and visual function (58.5%). Visual problems suspected by family or professionals were high (88.5%). Typical overall follow-up period of vision care was less than 3  months. In all, 46% of respondents used designated care pathways for @entity64 survivors with visual problems; 33.5% of respondents did not provide visual information leaflets. CONCLUSIONS: Significant inequality exists in care for @entity64 survivors who experience visual problems. There is great variability in how vision screening is undertaken, which vision tests are used, methods of referral to eye care services, how visual problems are managed, and what vision information is provided to  @entity64 survivors/carers. Further work is required to ensure equality and effective  care.
