Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 140(5): 465-471, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1767291

ABSTRACT

Importance: Visual acuity (VA) is one of the most important clinical data points in ophthalmology. However, few options for validated at-home VA assessments are currently available. Objective: To validate 3 at-home visual acuity tests in comparison with in-office visual acuity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between July 2020 and April 2021, eligible participants with VA of 20/200 or better were recruited from 4 university-based ophthalmology clinics (comprehensive, cornea, glaucoma, and retina clinics). Participants were prospectively randomized to self-administer 2 of 3 at-home VA tests (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) within 3 days before their standard-of-care clinic visit. Participants completed a survey assessing usability of the at-home tests. At the clinic visit, best-corrected Snellen distance acuity was measured as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The at-home VA test results were compared with the in-office VA test results using paired and unpaired t tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, χ2 tests, and Cohen κ agreement. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each at-home test were calculated to detect significant VA changes (≥0.2 logMAR) from the in-office baseline. Results: A total of 121 participants with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (13.0) years completed the study. The mean in-office VA was 0.11 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/25) with similar numbers of participants from the 4 clinics. Mean difference (logMAR) between the at-home test and in-office acuity was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04) for the printed chart, -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.09) for the mobile phone app, and -0.13 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10) for the website test. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the printed chart was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79), mobile phone app was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.69), and website test was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: The 3 at-home VA test results (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) appeared comparable within 1 line to in-office VA measurements. Older participants were more likely to have limited access to digital tools. Further development and validation of at-home VA testing modalities is needed with the expansion of teleophthalmology care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ophthalmology , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Middle Aged , Ophthalmology/methods , Telemedicine/methods , Vision Tests/methods , Visual Acuity
2.
Telemed J E Health ; 28(5): 675-681, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1406454

ABSTRACT

Purpose:Describe a comprehensive overview of a telehealth implementation process that highlights attitudes and satisfaction scores toward telehealth from patients, providers, and staff in an academic pediatric ophthalmology practice during the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Methods:The electronic medical record data for telehealth and in-person visits, as well as a patient experience survey in pediatric ophthalmology were retrospectively reviewed for March 1 to July 31, 2020 and March 1 to July 31, 2019. Patient experience survey results were retrospectively reviewed. All current providers and staff were invited to participate in an anonymous and voluntary survey focused on attitudes at the time of telehealth implementation.Results:During March 1 to July 31, 2020, there was significant increase in telehealth visits (n = 1,006) compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 22). Evaluation and management (E & M) codes (n = 527) were the most commonly used billing codes, and strabismus, nystagmus, and irregular eye movement (n = 496) were the most common telehealth primary diagnoses. The telehealth attitudes survey showed more positive responses from providers than staff. The patient experience survey showed more favorable scores for telehealth visits compared with clinic visits. However, only about 50% of the respondents were satisfied with the technology in terms of ease and quality of connection during their telehealth visits.Conclusions:Telehealth was a satisfactory alternative to clinic visits in our academic pediatric ophthalmology practice during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers and staff had largely positive attitudes toward telehealth; however, future efforts should include strategies to increase staff buy in. Patients had high satisfaction scores with telehealth visits despite connection challenges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ophthalmology , Telemedicine , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL