Percentage Respondents
(Institute of Ophthalmology) / 10% / Sheffield
(Royal Hallamshire Hospital) / 36% / Manchester
(Manchester Royal Infirmary) / 6% / Liverpool
(Royal Liverpool Hospital) / 54%

Of 240 surveys sent out, we received 51 responses, a return rate of 21%. Of those responses, where stated the information has been collated into the below table and graphs. The results are below but the majority of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the questions as they were posed. 25% of respondents felt further investigations could be of benefit, these are discussed in the comments section.

The follow questions were scored between 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 4 (Strongly Agree), any additional comments follow.

Current Service: / Percentage of Respondents
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
I am receiving reports in good time. / 6.1 / 12.2 / 28.6 / 53.1
The amount of information provided on the reportis appropriate for my needs. / 2.0 / 6.1 / 20.4 / 71.4

Reports are easy to understand.

/ 2.0 / 6.1 / 20.4 / 71.4

Problems and issues are dealt with quickly and efficiently, to my satisfaction.

/ 2.2 / 13.3 / 17.8 / 66.7
Advice from clinically qualified staff is clear and useful. / 0.0 / 10.9 / 17.4 / 71.7

Clinically qualified staff are easy to contact.

/ 2.4 / 11.9 / 26.2 / 59.5
I am happy with the range of tests available (see below). / 0.0 / 8.3 / 27.1 / 64.6

The overall service is meeting my needs.

/ 2.1 / 10.4 / 16.7 / 70.8

Possible Future Developments:

/ Yes / No

In addition to histopathology/cytology, are there other laboratory-based investigations for eye specimens that you would find useful?

/ 25 / 75
How often do you use our services (mark as appropriate)?
Daily / 2.5 / Weekly / 45 / Monthly / 40 / Annually / 12.5
Would you describe your practice as mainly: / Adnexal / 39.6 / External / 45.8 / Vitreo/retinal / 6.3 / Other / 8.3

1 | Page

User Survey 2015 Results



There often seems to be a bit of a delay between the date of reporting and date of receipt of the report (Liverpool).

Generally very good, occasionally takes over 10 days (Liverpool).

Rather slow, but I am not sure if the specimens are sent out promptly (London).

Too many unnecessary faxes (Manchester).


Too much information and sometimes unhelpful Clinical suggestions (Sheffield).

BCCs no longer have clearance distances reported, only clear or not (Liverpool).

Due to staff levels novel areas of investigation cannot be pursued, such as lymphatics in corneal tissue.(Liverpool).

Previously BCC reports were more detailed: distance to margins rather than just a statement that margin was clear (Liverpool).




If a sample is missing there does not seem to be a way of tracking where it went missing (London).

Never had a problem (All).


Has not been required (London).


Apart from email I do not know how to make e.g. telephone contact (Not Stated).

Never tried(All).


New molecular methods and immuno-histochemical methods need to be explored if enough staff time is available (Liverpool).

Staffing issues are limiting further development of corneal pathological methods due to the already existing workload (Liverpool).




The Clinicians have identified a need for more impression cytology and antibody testing (Not Stated).

Corneal impression cytology, new molecular biology techniques and further immuno-histochemistry(Liverpool).

FNA, Frozen Sections, MOHS type service (London).

The Introduction of IL6/IL10 assays to assist differentiation between intraocular lymphoma and inflammation (Not Stated).

We will need to look at having easy access to genetic testing for tumour markers in the very near future as targeted therapy becomes the norm (London).Microbiology (London).More Rapid Turnover (London).

Cytogenetics (London)

PCR for Acanthamoeba/Fungal keratitis (London and Sheffield).

Electron Microscopy on Occassional Cases (Manchester and Liverpool (same respondent)).

Any other comments regarding quality improvement:

Please can we have the slides or electronic micrograph of Acanthamoeba Immunohistochemistry? (London and Sheffield).

Local service for faster PCR results might be helpful/practical (Not Stated (London)).

The MREH/CMFT Ophthalmic Pathology service provides an excellent and necessary service to the largest and busiest eye hospital outside London. There is a large load here of extraocular oncology. The future of ophthalmic pathology services in the UK should NOT be dictated by the narrow and possibly unbalanced agenda led by the three intraocular oncology centres (Not Stated (Manchester)).

I think the service needs further development to match changes that have been going on in ocular surface and corneal disease (Not Stated).

There are opportunities for extending the range of diagnostic services which we as a group in Liverpool can specify, and also for research (Not Stated).

It would be very useful to be able to receive reports in an encrypted electronic form. This would save time and avoid potential transcription errors e.g. via trend micro or via nhs.net accounts (Liverpool).

Excellent Service (All).Good swift service with thorough and reliable reporting in my experience (Manchester).

DrMudhar, outstanding service. Thankyou (Sheffield).

Good Service and Dr Mudhar visits Wolverhampton twice yearly for evening histopathology/ophthalmology presentations (Sheffield).

We have a six monthly meeting with Dr Mudhar, we find it highly helpful (Sheffield).

These comments and suggestions are to be circulated around the NSOPS group for comment, with a plan of improvement to be formed and monitored through the NSOPS group meetings.

1 | Page

User Survey 2015 Results