Perioperative COVID-19 Screening at a Tertiary Ophthalmic Institution

Purpose: To characterize the rate of COVID-19 positivity during presurgical screening and the surgical outcomes of ophthalmic patients who were positive for COVID-19 and to report the overall cost. Methods: This retrospective study included patients 18 years or older who had ophthalmic surgical procedures at a tertiary institution between May 11, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Patients without a valid presurgical COVID-19 test within 3 days before their scheduled procedure, who had incomplete or mislabeled visits, or who had incomplete or missing data in their file were excluded. COVID-19 screening was completed using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) kit. Results: Of the 3585 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 2044 (57.02%) were women;the mean age was 68.2 years ± 12.8 (SD). Thirteen asymptomatic patients (0.36%) tested positive for COVID-19 via PCR screening. Three patients had a known positive COVID-19 infection within the 90 days before surgery;thus, 10 patients (0.28%) were found to have asymptomatic naïve COVID-19 infection via PCR testing. Testing was associated with a total charge of US $800 000. Five of the 13 patients (38.46%) who tested positive for COVID-19 experienced a delay in their surgery;the mean delay was 17.23 ± 22.97 days. Conclusions: Asymptomatic ophthalmic surgical patients had a low positivity rate with a limited impact on surgery scheduling at a significant cost. Further studies would be valuable in evaluating a targeted presurgical screening population as opposed to universal testing.

Perioperative COVID-19 Screening at a Tertiary Ophthalmic Institution.

Purpose: To characterize the rate of COVID-19 positivity during presurgical screening and the surgical outcomes of ophthalmic patients who were positive for COVID-19 and to report the overall cost. Methods: This retrospective study included patients 18 years or older who had ophthalmic surgical procedures at a tertiary institution between May 11, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Patients without a valid presurgical COVID-19 test within 3 days before their scheduled procedure, who had incomplete or mislabeled visits, or who had incomplete or missing data in their file were excluded. COVID-19 screening was completed using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) kit. Results: Of the 3585 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 2044 (57.02%) were women; the mean age was 68.2 years ± 12.8 (SD). Thirteen asymptomatic patients (0.36%) tested positive for COVID-19 via PCR screening. Three patients had a known positive COVID-19 infection within the 90 days before surgery; thus, 10 patients (0.28%) were found to have asymptomatic naïve COVID-19 infection via PCR testing. Testing was associated with a total charge of US $800 000. Five of the 13 patients (38.46%) who tested positive for COVID-19 experienced a delay in their surgery; the mean delay was 17.23 ± 22.97 days. Conclusions: Asymptomatic ophthalmic surgical patients had a low positivity rate with a limited impact on surgery scheduling at a significant cost. Further studies would be valuable in evaluating a targeted presurgical screening population as opposed to universal testing.

Characterization of ophthalmology virtual visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the use of virtual visits, as well as compare the characteristics to in-person visits during the pandemic period. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.