Trends in Utilization of Vitreoretinal Services Following the Initial Phase of the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To identify vitreoretinal practice patterns in the months following the initial 2020 national shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (US). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of vitreoretinal practice patterns from multiple retinal centers across the US from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The lowest utilization of retina care occurred during the week of March 23, 2020, after which utilization returned to pre-pandemic levels by July 2020. Patients with retinal detachments (RDs) presented with worse visual acuity during March, April, and May 2020 compared to the same time periods of 2018 and 2019 (P values < 0.05). However, only comparing eyes that presented in March 2018 to March 2020, was the year 1 vision significantly worse (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted vitreoretinal care. The vision of patients with RDs may not have been affected by the delayed presentation. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:15-23.].

REGIONAL POPULATION MOBILITY AND OUTPATIENT RETINA VISITS IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

PURPOSE: To characterize how community mobility patterns across the United States correlate with local changes in retina visits during the pandemic. METHODS: Outpatient retina clinic visits were linked to population mobility by combining multiple public data sets, including the Google Community Mobility Reports and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Infection. Percentage change from baseline in daily-average number of retina visits by county and mobility were measured by county. RESULTS: A total of 2,159,689 patient visits were examined across 332 counties. Daily-average retina visits decreased by 7.0%, 19.0%, 5.0%, and 4.0% from Quarter 1 to 4 of 2020. This decrease was negatively correlated with increased incident of COVID-19 deaths for Quarters 1 to 3 (r = -0.13, r = -0.16, and r = -0.15, respectively, P < 0.001) and increased incident cases for Quarters 1 and 2 (r = -0.18, r = -0.13, respectively, P < 0.001). Daily-average retina visits relative to baseline were significantly lower for metropolitan counties in Quarters 1 and 2, compared with urban and rural (P < 0.001). The decline in retina visits had greatest association with decline in workplace visits in Quarters 1 to 3 (r = 0.27, r = 0.09, r = 0.12, respectively, P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into how regional mobility patterns may help to explain and predict patient behaviors and retina outpatient visit responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bacterial Dispersion Associated With Various Patient Face Mask Designs During Simulated Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate bacterial dispersion with patient face mask use during simulated intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects were recruited for this single-center study. Each participant was instructed not to speak for 2 minutes, simulating a "no-talking" policy, while in an ophthalmic examination chair with an blood agar plate secured to the forehead and wearing various face masks (no mask, loose fitting surgical mask, tight-fitting surgical mask without tape, tight-fitting surgical mask with adhesive tape securing the superior portion of the mask, N95 mask, and cloth mask). Each scenario was then repeated while reading a 2-minute script, simulating a talking patient. The primary outcome measures were the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) and microbial species. RESULTS: During the "no-talking" scenario, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape developed fewer CFUs compared with subjects wearing the same mask without tape (difference 0.93 CFUs [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.55]; P = .003). During the speech scenarios, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape had significantly fewer CFUs compared with subjects without a face mask (difference 1.07 CFUs; P = .001), subjects with a loose face mask (difference 0.67 CFUs; P = .034), and subjects with a tight face mask without tape (difference 1.13 CFUs; P < .001). There was no difference between those with a tight-fitting surgical mask with tape and an N95 mask in the "no-talking" (P > .99) and "speech" (P = .831) scenarios. No oral flora were isolated in "no-talking" scenarios but were isolated in 8 of 75 (11%) cultures in speech scenarios (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The addition of tape to the superior portion of a patient's face mask reduced bacterial dispersion during simulated intravitreal injections and had no difference in bacterial dispersion compared with wearing N95 masks.

Practice Patterns and Responsiveness to Simulated Common Ocular Complaints Among US Ophthalmology Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To 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 PARTICIPANTS: In 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. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators 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 MEASURES: The 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. RESULTS: Of 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 RELEVANCE: In 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.