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.

Impact of an Electronic Decision Support Tool to Improve Ophthalmic Safety in Hydroxychloroquine Prescribing Practices.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to implement a clinical decision support tool (CDS) and assess its impact on adherence to 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) hydroxychloroquine dosing recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, interventional study implemented an automated alert to calculate maximum daily hydroxychloroquine dose based on 2016 AAO recommendations and flag noncompliant orders. Prevalence of excessive dosing after CDS implementation was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 7,417 patients met inclusion criteria. After intervention, prevalence of excessive dosing decreased from 27.4% to 21.1% (P < .001) among all prescriptions and from 26.8% to 16.2% (P < .001) among new prescriptions. Daily doses exceeding 400 mg decreased from 0.8% to 0.02% (P < .001). Risk factors for excessive dosing included low weight (odds ratio, 75.6 [95% CI, 54.0 to 105.8]) and nonrheumatologist prescriber (odds ratio, 1.60 to 3.63; all P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the efficacy of a CDS in reducing excessive hydroxychloroquine dosing and improving adherence to AAO ophthalmic safety guidelines. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2022;53:310-316.].

Examining the Necessity of Postoperative Day-1 Review After Pars Plana Vitrectomy: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the necessity of the postoperative day-1 (POD1) review after pars plana vitrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis included available literature that documented medical and surgical interventions performed on POD1 review after pars plana vitrectomy. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a binomial-normal model to analyze three data sets consisting of all interventions, medical interventions, and surgical interventions. Heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were performed. RESULTS: POD1 reviews of 2,262 patients across 14 studies were examined to yield a total POD1 intervention rate estimate of 4.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-13.9). When stratified by medical or surgical intervention, the intervention rate estimates were 4.1% (95% CI, 1.4-11.6) and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3-1.3), respectively. The most common complication requiring postoperative intervention was elevated intraocular pressure. CONCLUSION: Given the wide confidence intervals of the estimated intervention rates, variability in postoperative practices, and range of interventions performed, the POD1 review cannot be discarded in its entirety. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:513-518.].