ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We introduced a video consultation (VC) during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in an ophthalmology practice with eight doctors to ensure continuous ophthalmological care, infection prophylaxis and to compensate a decreased number of patient presentations. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the most common reasons for patient presentations in the VC, the proportion of re-presentations in the practice despite VC, practical challenges associated with the introduction of VC and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with a recent acute visual deterioration and severe eye pain were excluded from the VC. The VC were carried out by a trained specialist in ophthalmology. A questionnaire with eight questions was completed after the VC appointment in order to evaluate the proportion of completed VC and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 29 (13 male, Ø 52.6 years, 16 female, Ø 64.7 years) patients in this analysis. The VC could be performed with 68.97% of the participants who rated their overall experience with an average grade of 1.6 (1 very good to 6 insufficient) and all of them indicated that they would recommend the VC. Of presentations in VC 70% were related to the symptoms of the anterior eye segment. In 70% of the cases no re-presentations took place in the unit. CONCLUSION: Our study represents a significant practical application of VC for the management of non-urgent ocular conditions with maximum infection prophylaxis. The introduction of VC was severely limited by technological or user-related issues by the establishment of video connections. Patient satisfaction with VC was high to very high.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ophthalmology , Telemedicine , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We introduced a video consultation (VC) during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in an ophthalmology practice with eight doctors to ensure continuous ophthalmological care, infection prophylaxis and to compensate a decreased number of patient presentations. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the most common reasons for patient presentations in the VC, the proportion of re-presentations in the practice despite VC, practical challenges associated with the introduction of VC and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with a recent acute visual deterioration and severe eye pain were excluded from the VC. The VC were carried out by a trained specialist in ophthalmology. A questionnaire with eight questions was completed after the VC appointment in order to evaluate the proportion of completed VC and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 29 (13 male, Ø 52.6 years, 16 female, Ø 64.7 years) patients in this analysis. The VC could be performed with 68.97% of the participants who rated their overall experience with an average grade of 1.6 (1 very good to 6 insufficient) and all of them indicated that they would recommend the VC. Of presentations in VC 70% were related to the symptoms of the anterior eye segment. In 70% of the cases no re-presentations took place in the unit. CONCLUSION: Our study represents a significant practical application of VC for the management of non-urgent ocular conditions with maximum infection prophylaxis. The introduction of VC was severely limited by technological or user-related issues by the establishment of video connections. Patient satisfaction with VC was high to very high.