*5.5. Pathway of a High-Risk Patient*

In the GSMS, a clinician triaged both new patients and follow-up patients, whereby high-risk patients were sent directly to the GE for a face-to-face appointment [49,56–59]. The GAC and the GCC, however, did not foresee such triage system, in that the nonmedical staff assessed all new patients [48,51]. However, high-risk patients were sent to a GE immediately.

In all implemented SC schemes, a GE assessed all new patients to decide on their eligibility. The ANGIG&RANZCO [28] and the Canadian Glaucoma Society [29] recommendations on SC were an exception in that the initial assessment by a GE was not mandatory if the non-medical staff considered a new patient to be low-to-moderate risk [29], without significant ocular risk factors [28].

#### *5.6. Compliance to Guidelines*

An increase in compliance with guidelines was noted when implementing a SC clinic due to the combined examination efforts of the non-medical staff and the GE [35,41,47]. Compliance was also higher when following a standardized protocol [35,36,47]. Moreover, by delegating some tasks to the non-medical staff, the GE would have more time and would not have to give up examinations [40]. Banes et al. showed that the lack of time in the often very busy StC clinic caused the GE to skip some examinations [40]. Such was also the case in the GFU, where a low compliance rate was noted in the SC-GFU as well as in the StC-GFU [36,62]. This clinic admitted only low risk patients with no proven glaucoma (but with positive family history, OHT and/or suspicious looking discs) or early glaucoma damage. In such cases, structural measurements were deemed to be more important, for being more informative and also quicker to perform than VFs [36,62]. None of the VC-articles examined the effect on compliance.
