Appointment trends in new and established patients in ophthalmology and optometry during a pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Song W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7923867 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of the current study is to examine how nonmodifiable sociodemographic, disease, appointment, management, and survey factors correlate with provider rating. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted on 29 857 patient Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys collected from January 2017 to January 2019 at a tertiary eye center. We included surveys of patients aged 18 years or older, who answered at least 4 of 6 subfield questions, and completed the survey within 90 days of the appointment. The main outcome was the odds of receiving top box score (TBS) of 10/10 on the survey question regarding overall provider rating. The results showed that the variables with higher odds of TBS included higher overall appointment attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.23-5.75], P = .013); older patient age (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 2.08-2.87], P < .001]; higher percentage of survey questions completed (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.79-2.27], P < .001); better best corrected visual acuity (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 1.3-2.64], P = .001); optometry clinic visit (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], P < .001); having procedures (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.04-1.36], P = .013), surgery scheduled (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36], P = .020], or refraction done (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08-1.25], P < .001); being seen by male providers (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.04-1.17], P = .001); and having additional eye testing performed (OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.13], P = .048). Variables associated with lower odds of TBS included longer time to complete survey (OR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.3-0.58], P = .001); new patient encounter (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.58-0.65], P < .001); and glaucoma (OR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75], P < .001), cornea (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87], P < .001), or comprehensive clinic visits (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79-0.94], P < .001). Thus, nonmodifiable factors may affect the provider rating, and these factors should be studied further and accounted for when interpreting the results of patient experience surveys.
| S-EPMC8358496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To characterize the use of virtual visits, as well as compare the characteristics to in-person visits during the pandemic period. This retrospective study included patients who had virtual and in-person ophthalmology visits from March 19, 2020, to July 31, 2020, in a large multispecialty ophthalmic center. Exclusion criteria included patients aged less than 18 years old; canceled, incomplete, mislabelled, and duplicated visits. 2943 virtual and 56,174 in-person visits were identified. A random sample of 3000 in-person visits was created. Each visit was analyzed as an individual data point. 2,266 virtual visits (2,049 patients, 64.3% female, mean [SD] age 64.3 [16.6] years old) and 2590 in-person visits (2509 patients, 59.5% female, 65.9 [15.8] years old) were included. Most virtual visits were classified as comprehensive ophthalmology (34.6%), optometry-related (19.5%), and oculoplastics (13.0%). For in-person visits, the most common specialties were optometry (29.8%), comprehensive ophthalmology (23.9%), and retina and uveitis (17.3%). The most common diagnoses in the virtual group were from the eyelids, lacrimal system, and orbits group (26.9%), while in the in-person groups were choroid and retina conditions (19.3%). Numerous ocular conditions were evaluated and managed through virtual visits, and external complaints and oculoplastic consults appear to be well-suited to the virtual format. Further studies focusing on visual outcomes and patient experience will be beneficial.
| S-EPMC8796604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:North American optometry and ophthalmology faculty members and vision science librarians were surveyed online (14% response rate) about teaching evidence-based practice (EBP). Similar to studies of other health care programs, all five EBP steps (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, Assess) were taught to varying degrees. Optometry and ophthalmology EBP educators may want to place further emphasis on (1) the Apply and Assess steps, (2) faculty- and student-generated questions and self-assessment in clinical settings, (3) online teaching strategies, (4) programmatic integration of EBP learning objectives, and (5) collaboration between faculty members and librarians.
| S-EPMC4076132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic posed great challenges for teachers and students, as teaching had to take place despite the restriction of classroom teaching. For attendance lessons and events with patient contact alternatives had to be arranged at short notice between mid-March and the beginning of the semester in mid-April.ObjectiveDescription of the concept and implementation in the student teaching at the Department of Ophthalmology of the University Medical Center Mainz in complete digital form in spring 2020.Presentation of conceptLectures, examination course and practical training in ophthalmology take place in the 5th and 6th semester of the study of human medicine. The basis of the new concept were the former course curricula. Implemented concepts included a complete revision and implementation of lectures as video podcasts, examination videos, online examination conferences, interactive patient cases, narrated videos of surgery, anamnesis videos of patients and the design of the virtual patient room, a live online practice with presentation and examination of patients including transmission of the slit-lamp image to reproduce anterior and posterior segment examination. An evaluation showed a very positive reception of the new concept by students.DiscussionWithin a tight timeframe of 4 weeks a complete revision of the ophthalmology course was achieved. The implementation was time-consuming, with the largest share in the media production of examination videos, interactive patient cases and video podcasts of the lectures. We consider a reduction of classroom teaching for parts of the learning objectives that can be represented by such videos to be possibly useful. An independent digital appropriation of such content may enable a more productive learning environment in face-to-face teaching.
| S-EPMC7809555 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8147902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic increased the gender gap in academic publishing. This study assesses COVID-19's impact on ophthalmology gender authorship distribution and compares the gender authorship proportion of COVID-19 ophthalmology-related articles to previous ophthalmology articles.MethodsThis cohort study includes authors listed in all publications related to ophthalmology in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset and CDC COVID-19 research database. Articles from 65 ophthalmology journals from January to July 2020 were selected. All previous articles published in the same journals were extracted from PubMed. Gender-API determined authors' gender.ResultsOut of 119,457 COVID-19-related articles, we analyzed 528 ophthalmology-related articles written by 2518 authors. Women did not exceed 40% in any authorship positions and were most likely to be middle, first, and finally, last authors. The proportions of women in all authorship positions from the 2020 COVID-19 group (29.6% first, 31.5% middle, 22.1% last) are significantly lower compared to the predicted 2020 data points (37.4% first, 37.0% middle, 27.6% last) (p < .01). The gap between the proportion of female authors in COVID-19 ophthalmology research and the 2020 ophthalmology-predicted proportion (based on 2002-2019 data) is 6.1% for overall authors, 7.8% for first authors, and 5.5% for last and middle authors. The 2020 COVID-19 authorship group (1925 authors) was also compared to the 2019 group (33,049 authors) based on journal category (clinical/basic science research, general/subspecialty ophthalmology, journal impact factor).ConclusionsCOVID-19 amplified the authorship gender gap in ophthalmology. When compared to previous years, there was a greater decrease in women's than men's academic productivity.
| S-EPMC7857347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients.ObjectiveTo report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, 40 private practices and 20 university centers were randomly selected from 4 regions across the US. Data were collected on April 29 and 30, 2020.InterventionsInvestigators placed telephone calls to each ophthalmology practice office. Responses to 3 clinical scenarios-refraction request, cataract evaluation, and symptoms of a posterior vitreous detachment-were compared regionally and between private and university centers.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary measure was time to next appointment for each of the 3 scenarios. Secondary measures included use of telemedicine and advertisement of COVID-19 precautions.ResultsOf the 40 private practices, 2 (5%) were closed, 24 (60%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 14 (35%) remained open to all patients. Of the 20 university centers, 2 (10%) were closed, 17 (85%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 1 (5%) remained open to all patients. There were no differences for any telemedicine metric. University centers were more likely than private practices to mention preparations to limit the spread of COVID-19 (17 of 20 [85%] vs 14 of 40 [35%]; mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P < .001). Private practices had a faster next available appointment for cataract evaluations than university centers, with a mean (SD) time to visit of 22.1 (27.0) days vs 75.5 (46.1) days (mean difference, 53.4; 95% CI, 23.1-83.7; P < .001). Private practices were also more likely than university centers to be available to see patients with flashes and floaters (30 of 40 [75%] vs 8 of 20 [40%]; mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of investigator telephone calls to ophthalmology practice offices, there were uniform recommendations for the 3 routine ophthalmic complaints. Private practices had shorter times to next available appointment for cataract extraction and were more likely to evaluate posterior vitreous detachment symptoms. As there has not been a study examining these practice patterns before the COVID-19 pandemic, the relevance of these findings on public health is yet to be determined.
| S-EPMC7407319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Anticoagulation Forum and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend drive-up international normalized ratio (INR) testing to combat INR non-adherence and increase safety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient perceptions and impact on attendance have not been studied.ObjectiveTo assess appointment volume and patient perception after initiation of drive-up INR testing in a rural pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.MethodsThis cross-sectional cohort survey study offered each patient attending the anticoagulation clinic via drive-up or in-office visit a survey between May 27 and July 2, 2020. Patients testing off-site were excluded. Study end points included monthly patient volume, visit type preference, testing barriers, desired drive-up duration, and overall clinic satisfaction. Clinic appointment volume from October 2019 to June 2020 was collected retrospectively through a schedule review.ResultsSixty-four (80%) of 80 surveys offered were completed: 46.6% of respondents preferred drive-up testing, 26.7% indifferent, and 26.7% preferred in-office visits; 38.7% of respondents indicated a greater likelihood of continuing routine INR monitoring via drive-up testing. Of the respondents completing the survey curbside, 46% and 27% of respondents identified reduced COVID-19 transmission risk and ease of transportation as benefits of drive-up INR testing, respectively. March and April clinic volumes were 19% and 22% below average, respectively, returning to baseline after drive-up testing was implemented. Clinic rating before and after drive-up testing remained high at 2.75 on a scale of 0-3. While infection risk was identified as the biggest barrier to care by 32.8% of respondents, 59.3% of all respondents wanted drive-up testing to continue indefinitely.ConclusionsDrive-up INR testing improves patient attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient perception of drive-up testing is positive. About 46% of respondents preferred drive-up INR testing with telehealth follow-up and 59.3% of respondents want drive-up testing to continue indefinitely, which suggests this approach to INR testing as a potential method to allay barriers to routine monitoring beyond the scope of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8014677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SignificanceMen earn at least 6.5% more than women in their first full-time jobs as optometrists. For current salaries, the gender wage gap is more than 13%. This study details the gender wage gap that remains after controlling for practice ownership, residency training, and employer-defined full-time work.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to measure the gender wage gap by region and practice type for full-time optometrists who did not complete a residency and do not own their practice.MethodsParticipants completed an online survey, providing data for their first and current optometry positions and demographic information. Respondents who reported full-time employment in the United States, not completing a residency, and not owning their practice were selected for further analysis by census region and practice type. In each category, the gender wage gap was calculated.ResultsIn all regions and practice types, men were paid higher starting salaries than women. For current salaries, men were paid higher in almost all regions and practice types. The wage gap increased from starting salary to current salary, although not in all regions and practice types.ConclusionsWhen practice ownership, residency completion, and full-time work are controlled for, there remains a difference in the pay received by men and women in optometry. The salary data presented in this study may help optometrists narrow the wage gap.
| S-EPMC7664963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the threat of COVID-19 on vulnerable populations continues, mitigation protocols have escalated the use of telehealth platforms, secure 2-way video platforms with audio capabilities. The goal of the current study was to examine factors associated with successful completion of video telehealth appointments in HIV care. We utilized a random effects logistic model to assess characteristics of patient encounters that predicted completed telehealth visits. Results show that factors such as identifying as black (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.40, p < 0.01), identifying as heterosexual (AOR = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.29-0.55, p < 0.01), identifying as Hispanic/Latinx (AOR = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), having public insurance (e.g., Ryan White funding, Medicare/Medicaid) (AOR = .25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33, p < .001), and having detectable viral load (AOR = .049, 95% CI, 0.31-0.76) are negatively associated with completion of telehealth appointments. Results suggest that greater efforts to address the digital divide are needed to increase access to video telehealth.
| S-EPMC8313002 | biostudies-literature