Problem: eye referrals live on two numbers — acuity and timeline — yet letters bury them in narrative. Answer in brief: referral architecture puts vision measurements first, change second, risk factors third, and the question last. This guide teaches the architecture with diabetic retinopathy and wet AMD applications, and OET Writing for Optometrists — Course 1 trains referral architecture across 16 topic sections.
Referral-letter architecture for eyes
P1: eye, symptom, timeline, suspected condition (“three-week distortion, right eye, suspected wet AMD”). P2: measurements — acuities both eyes, pressures, fields or Amsler as relevant, refractive baseline where it matters. P3: risk and context — diabetes control, hypertension, smoking, medications affecting eyes (steroids, hydroxychloroquine). P4: the question with urgency grade. Numbers before narrative, always: ophthalmology triages from acuities and timelines.
Diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema
Screening-grade detail: retinopathy grade per eye with the screening source and date, macular involvement (oedema present/absent, OCT thickness if known), HbA1c trend, blood pressure, pregnancy status where relevant (accelerates disease). State the screening interval change you seek (“routine annual → six-monthly surveillance? treatment assessment?”). Macular oedema affecting central vision upgrades urgency — say which eye reads what, exactly.
Train eye-referral architecture supervised? The full OET Writing for Optometrists — Course 1 teaches referral architecture, diabetic retinopathy, macular oedema and urgent retinal referrals across 16 topic sections with mock tests. Explore the course →
Urgent retinal referral: suspected wet AMD
Distortion onset in days-to-weeks, acuity drop quantified, Amsler findings, fellow-eye status (already treated? at risk?), anticoagulation (injection planning), transport and escort (dilated examination, poor vision). The question names anti-VEGF assessment explicitly with the speed the timeline demands. Fellow-eye history is load-bearing: bilateral risk changes everything.
Worked example: retinopathy screening referral
Fictional case, newly written: Mr Mensah, 59, type 2 diabetes eleven years, HbA1c risen 56 → 69; screening shows bilateral background retinopathy with right macular oedema; acuities 6/9 right, 6/6 left; BP 154/92; non-smoker; no visual symptoms reported.
Shape: purpose (treatment assessment for right macular oedema). Grades per eye with screening date. Glycaemic and pressure context with trends. Asymptomatic status stated (important — silent disease). Request: “I would appreciate ophthalmology assessment for right macular oedema with a view to treatment, and advice on surveillance interval for the left eye.” Roughly 175 words.
FAQs
Should asymptomatic findings be emphasised?
Yes — state the absence of symptoms explicitly. It explains why the patient needs convincing and why the referral, not the complaint, drives action.
How do I handle two eyes with different findings?
Right eye, left eye, every time — same order throughout, never mixed. Bilateral letters fail when eyes blur together.
What is in the course?
Sixteen topic sections on referral architecture, diabetic retinopathy, macular oedema and urgent retinal referrals, with 5 complete mock tests.
The matching course
OET Writing for Optometrists — Course 1 builds eye referrals properly: architecture first, then diabetic retinopathy, macular oedema and urgent wet AMD — 16 topic sections with 5 mock tests. If your letters narrate where they should measure, train here.
Sources and note
- OET Writing format per the official OET site: oet.com — Writing. Values above are illustrative fiction; follow local protocols in practice and current OET guidance for the exam.
- Course details verified from its public staging page (read-only): 16 topic sections, 5 mock tests.
- Case and letter lines are newly written and fictional; other valid structures exist.
Put this into practice
Compare these course outlines and choose the practice that matches your next goal.
