Your browser doesn't support javascript.
The current use of glaucoma virtual clinics in Europe.
Azzopardi, Matthew; Prokosch-Willing, Verena; Michelessi, Manuele; Fea, Antonio Maria; Oddone, Francesco; Mercieca, Karl.
  • Azzopardi M; Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre, Dudley Road, Birmingham, UK.
  • Prokosch-Willing V; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Germany.
  • Michelessi M; IRCCS Fondazione Bietti, Rome, Italy.
  • Fea AM; Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy.
  • Oddone F; IRCCS Fondazione Bietti, Rome, Italy.
  • Mercieca K; University Hospital Bonn, Eye Clinic, Ernst Abbe Strasse 2, Bonn, Germany. doctormercieca@yahoo.com.
Eye (Lond) ; 2022 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2312775
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To assess and describe current utilisation, characteristics and perspectives on virtual glaucoma clinics (VGCs) amongst European glaucoma specialists.

METHODS:

Cross-sectional, anonymized, online questionnaire distributed to all European Glaucoma Society-registered specialists. Questions were stratified into five domains Demographics, Questions about VGC use, Questions for non-VGC users, COVID-19 effects, and VGC advantages/disadvantages.

RESULTS:

30% of 169 participants currently use VGCs, with 53% based in the United Kingdom. Of those using VGCs, 85% reported higher patient acceptance compared to traditional care. The commonest virtual model was asynchronous remote monitoring (54%). Nurses (49%) and ophthalmic technicians (46%) were mostly responsible for data collection, with two-thirds using a mixture of professionals. Consultant ophthalmologists were the main decision-makers in 51% of VGCs. Preferred cohorts were ocular hypertension (85%), glaucoma suspects (80%), early/moderate glaucoma in worse eye (68%), stable glaucoma irrespective of treatment (59%) and stable glaucoma on monotherapy (51%). Commonest investigations were IOP (90%), BCVA (88%), visual field testing (85%) and OCT (78%), with 33 different combinations. Reasons for face-to-face referral included visual field progression (80%), 'above-target' IOP (63%), and OCT progression (51%). Reasons for not using VGCs included lack of experience (47%), adequate systems in place (42%), no appropriate staff (34%) and insufficient time/money (34%). 55% of non-VGC users are interested in their use with 38% currently considering future implementation. 83% stated VGC consultations have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; 86% of all participants felt that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of VGCs.

CONCLUSIONS:

A significant proportion of European glaucoma units are currently using VGCs, while others are considering implementation. Financial reimbursement and consensus guidelines are potentially crucial steps in VGC uptake.

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal subject: Ophthalmology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S41433-022-02111-5

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal subject: Ophthalmology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S41433-022-02111-5