Dataset Information

Lockdown low vision assessment: an audit of 500 telephone-based modified low vision consultations.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Non-urgent face-to-face outpatient ophthalmology appointments were suspended in the United Kingdom in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In common with other centres, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London) offered modified telephone consultations to new and follow-up patients in the low vision clinic. Here we assess the success of this telephone service.

Methods

Data were collected for 500 consecutive telephone low vision appointments. Successful completion of the assessment and clinical outcomes (low vision aids prescribed, onward referral) were recorded.

Results

Telephone assessments were completed for 364 people (72.8%). The most common reasons for non-completion were either no answer to the telephone call (75 people, 15%), or the patient declining assessment (20 people, 4%). There was no association between age and the likelihood of an assessment being completed. 131 new low vision aids were dispensed, 77 internal referrals were made and 15 people were referred to outside services. More than 80% of the low vision aids prescribed were useful.

Conclusions

Telephone low vision assessments were completed in about three-quarters of cases. About one-quarter of consultations resulted in new low vision aids being dispensed, which were generally found useful. Telephone low vision assessments can be used successfully in a large low vision clinic, but have many limitations when compared to face-to-face assessments.

SUBMITTER: Patel A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014140 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The use of information technology, including internet- and telephone-based resources, is becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone consultations provide a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilize a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-face general practice visits.A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed using the search terms for the intervention (telephone consultation) and the comparator (general practice). Systematic reviews and randomized control trials that examined telephone consultation compared to normal face-to-face consultation in general practice were included in this review. Papers were reviewed, assessed for quality (Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool) and data extracted and analysed.Two systematic reviews and one RCT were identified and included in the analysis. The RCT (N?=?388) was of patients requesting same-day appointments from two general practices and patients were randomized to a same-day face-to-face appointment or a telephone call back consultation. There was a reduction in the time spent on consultations in the telephone group (1.5 min (0.6 to 2.4)) and patients in the telephone arm had 0.2 (0 to 0.3) more follow-up consultations than the face-to-face group. One systematic review focused on telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use, and included one RCT and one other observational study that examined telephone consultations. The other systematic review focused on patient access and included one RCT and four observational studies that examined telephone consultations. Both systematic reviews provided narrative interpretations of the evidence and concluded that telephone consultations provided an appropriate alternative to telephone consultations and reduced practice work load.There is a lack of high level evidence for telephone consultations in a GP setting; however, current evidence suggests that telephone consultations as an alternative to face-to-face general practice consultations offers an appropriate option in certain settings.PROSPERO CRD42015025225.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth has been used for health care delivery for decades, but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the uptake of telehealth in many care settings globally. However, few studies have carried out a direct comparison among different telehealth modalities, with very few studies having compared the effectiveness of telephone and video telehealth modalities.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing synchronous telehealth consultations delivered by telephone and those conducted by video with outcomes such as clinical effectiveness, patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient and clinician satisfaction with care.MethodsPubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and CENTRAL were searched via the Cochrane Library from inception until February 10, 2023, for RCTs without any language restriction. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted on included RCTs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. We included studies carried out in any health setting-involving all types of outpatient cohorts and all types of health care providers-that compared synchronous video consultations directly with telephone consultations and reported outcomes specified in the objective. We excluded studies of clinician-to-clinician telehealth consults, hospitalized patients, and asynchronous consultations.ResultsSixteen RCTs-10 in the United States, 3 in the United Kingdom, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Australia involving 1719 participants-were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Most of the telehealth interventions were for hospital-based outpatient follow-ups, monitoring, and rehabilitation (n=13). The 3 studies that were conducted in the community all focused on smoking cessation. In half of the studies, nurses delivered the care (n=8). Almost all included studies had high or unclear risk of bias, mainly due to bias in the randomization process and selection of reported results. The trials found no substantial differences between telephone and video telehealth consultations with regard to clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and health care use (cost-effectiveness) outcomes. None of the studies reported on patient safety or adverse events. We did not find any study on telehealth interventions for diagnosis, initiating new treatment, or those conducted in a primary care setting.ConclusionsBased on a small set of diverse trials, we found no notable differences between telephone and video consultations for the management of patients with an established diagnosis. There is also a significant lack of telehealth research in primary care settings despite its high uptake.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing literature on the importance of identifying and managing frailty, its assessment has been limited in clinical settings. With the goal of integrating frailty assessment into routine clinical practice, this quality improvement project aimed to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of administering a telephone-based frailty assessment.MethodsBetween 9/2020 and 6/2021, we identified 169 established patients with serious illnesses in an academic primary care-geriatric clinic. Patients were contacted via telephone, and their current medical, functional, nutritional, cognitive, and mood statuses were assessed using validated screening tools. A deficit-accumulation frailty score was then calculated using an electronic medical record-based frailty index calculator and standardized documentation with recommendations was generated for providers. The primary outcome was feasibility, measured as the proportion of patients successfully assessed. Secondary outcomes included completion rates of each domain, administration time, providers' perception, and clinical utility of the assessment.ResultsA total of 139 (82.2%) patients, mean age of 82 years, 63.3% frail were successfully assessed. Of the 139 assessments, medical and functional domains were completed for all, while nutrition, mood, and cognition were completed by 88.5% (n = 123), 68.3% (n = 95), and 59.7% (n = 83) of the time, respectively. Conducting the full assessment took an average (standard deviation) time of 26.1 (7.3) minutes. Without the cognitive and mood domain, assessment took an average of 15.7 (7.5) minutes. Patients' providers found the information from the assessment helpful in evaluating and managing their patients. Care plans of 51.8% and 65.0% of patients who had mobility and mind issues, respectively, addressed these domains within 30 days after the assessment.ConclusionImplementation of the telephone-based frailty assessment is feasible, acceptable, and has the potential to influence the care plans of older adults. This work demonstrated how frailty assessment can be integrated with the outpatient setting.

Project description:SignificanceWe assessed the number of referrals for low vision (LV) services to determine if establishing an LV program at a large academic medical center impacted referral rates. Visual acuity (VA), referral outcome, location, and specialty were examined as factors that could impact referrals.PurposeThis study aimed to identify gaps in the referral process to LV services.MethodsElectronic medical records of patients were reviewed to ascertain the referral rate among those who qualified for services, both before (2014 to 2016) and after (2017 to 2019) the establishment of an LV program. The medical records were further subdivided into two categories based on VA in the better-seeing eye: 20/70 to 20/200 and 20/200 to worse vision.ResultsA total of 2014 patient records with VA qualifying for LV services were reviewed. The proportion of patients who had a VA of 20/70 to 20/200 inclusive in their better eye was 91.7%. A majority (89.8%) of patients with VA of 20/70 to 20/200 and 74.4% of patients with VA worse than 20/200 were never referred. Before establishing an LV program, only 2.2% of patients with VA of 20/70 to 20/200 were referred for services on their first visit, which improved to 8% after the program was established (odds ratio [OR], 3.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.37 to 6.33; P < .001). Also, before the program's establishment, 12.5% of patients with VA worse than 20/200 were referred on their first visit, which increased to 31.9% after the program's establishment (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.50 to 7.19; P = .002). Patients with VA worse than 20/200 were more likely to be referred (before: OR, 6.34 [95% CI, 3.03 to 13.28; P < .001]; after: OR, 5.38 [95% CI, 3.09 to 9.37; P < .001]). Our data also showed that 10.3% of patients in this study declined referral to LV services.ConclusionsReferral rates to LV services are low among patients who qualify. The establishment of an LV program at the medical center significantly increased referral rates. However, more improvement is necessary to connect patients to LV services.