ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose: This study aimed to identify patient's reason for no-show at a university eye clinic after ophthalmic examination via a mobile ophthalmic unit, which provides comprehensive ophthalmic care to underserved communities in a region of Brazil. Methods: In 2017/2018, this prospective observational study searched for no-shows at referrals to a university eye clinic after an outreach program screening via a mobile ophthalmic unit in 10 municipalities in the central-western region of São Paulo, Brazil. A total of 1,928 patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination at no cost, and 37.1% of them needed referral to a university eye clinic for specialized examinations or surgeries. We used the following two main tools: (1) comparative analysis between patients who attended the referral and those who did not; (2) active search using a questionnaire to assess reasons for no-show. Results: Attendance to referrals was not influenced by age, gender, distance from the university hospital, number of ophthalmologists in the municipality, average family income, and visual acuity. The main cause for referrals was cataract (350 cases). No-show was most common among glaucoma/suspected glaucoma (54.1%) cases, followed by strabismus (45%) and anterior segment disease (33.6%) cases. Many patients who did not attend the referral sought another service. Conclusion: Patient's issues and lack of knowledge regarding their ophthalmic condition are the main reasons for no-show at referrals for free ophthalmic care. Thus, educational campaigns are needed to achieve consistently high attendance to prevent avoidable blindness.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar as razões para não comparecimento à clínica oftalmológica da universidade após triagem oftalmológica realizada usando uma unidade móvel oftalmológica que fornece exame oftalmológico para comunidades não assistidas em uma região do Brasil. Métodos: Foi realizado um estudo observacional prospectivo no ano de 2017/2018 para avaliar as razões que fizeram com que os indivíduos triados usando uma unidade móvel oftalmológica e referenciados para a clínica oftalmológica da universidade não comparecessem à consulta agendada. A triagem foi feita em 10 municípios da região centro-oeste do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Todos os 1.928 participantes fizeram o exame oftalmológico sem custo e 37,1% deles necessitaram de encaminhamento para a clínica oftalmológica da universidade para exames especializados ou cirurgias. O estudo usou duas ferramentas: (1) análise comparativa entre os dados dos indivíduos encaminhados que compareceram ao agendamento com os que não compareceram; (2) busca ativa dos indivíduos que não compareceram à consulta agendada, aplicando-se um questionário para avaliar os motivos para o não comparecimento. Resultados: Fatores como idade, sexo, distância entre a cidade de origem e o hospital universitário, número de oftalmologistas na cidade de procedência, renda familiar média e acuidade visual não influenciaram no comparecimento ao encaminhamento. Catarata foi a maior causa para o encaminhamento (350 casos). O não comparecimento foi maior nos portadores de glaucoma/glaucoma suspeitos (54,1%), estrabismo (45%) e afecções do segmento anterior (33,6%). Muitos indivíduos que não compareceram ao serviço de referência procuraram por outro local para o atendimento oftalmológico. Conclusão: O não comparecimento para tratamento oftalmológico sem custo depende de fatores relacionados ao paciente ou à falta de conhecimento das próprias condições oftalmológicas. Campanhas educativas nas comunidades assistidas devem ser feitas para alcançar maior comparecimento às consultas e melhor prevenir a cegueira evitável.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of mobile ophthalmic unit screenings and to investigate barriers between community care and resolution of the problem at a tertiary center. METHODS This prospective study evaluated a convenience sample from 10 municipalities in São Paulo State, Brazil. Patients were assessed in the municipality by a mobile ophthalmic unit and underwent a complete ophthalmic consultation. Patients were referred as warranted to a tertiary hospital. RESULTS The mobile ophthalmic unit screened 1,928 individuals and 714 (37%) were referred. The mean age of the referred patients was 57.12 (SD = 19.5) years with best corrected visual acuity of 0.37 (SD = 0.36) logMAR. Forty-seven (6.6%) patients were blind and 185 (26.5%) were visually impaired. Cataracts (44.7%) and pterygium (14.7%) accounted for most referrals. Of those referred, 67.1% presented to the tertiary center. The diagnosis by the mobile ophthalmic unit corresponded to the one by the tertiary center in 88.5% of the cases. There were a significantly higher number of blind and visually impaired persons among those who presented to the hospital. There was a significantly greater attendance among patients living in more distant municipalities from the reference center with a higher number of inhabitants and a greater number of ophthalmologists in the cities of origin (p < 0.05, all comparisons). Complete treatment was performed in 65.6% of patients, and loss to follow-up was the main cause of incomplete treatment in 50.7% of patients. A total of 313 cataract surgeries were performed, which reduced the number of blind patients from 20 to 2 and of visually impaired individuals from 87 to 2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Only 37% of the patients assessed by a mobile ophthalmic unit required referral to a tertiary hospital. Among the referred patients, 67.1% presented to the hospital, and complete resolution after treatment was approximately 65.5%. There was a significant improvement in visual acuity and a reduction in the prevalence of blindness and visual impairment postoperatively.