Expansion of patient eligibility for virtual glaucoma clinics: a long-term strategy to increase the capacity of high-quality glaucoma care.

AIMS: The virtual glaucoma clinic (VGC) is a well-established diagnostic pathway for delivery of glaucoma care. Current UK national guidance recommends VGCs for patients with ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspects or early glaucoma. This study evaluates whether expanded eligibility criteria, including other glaucoma phenotypes and disease stages, can deliver safe and effective care with a positive patient experience. METHODS: Records of over 8000 patients were reviewed in order to determine suitability for VGC attendance using expanded eligibility criteria. Patients with three prior consecutive visits within the glaucoma service were included. Follow-up interval, clinic type, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and visual field performance were recorded. Patient satisfaction was recorded for a sample of 118 patients. RESULTS: 2017 patients over 31 months were included. Two-thirds of eyes had ocular comorbidities, a fifth of eyes had undergone prior cataract surgery and 10% of eyes had undergone a prior laser treatment for glaucoma. After three visits, 32% of patients remained in the VGC, 42% were seen in face-to-face clinics and 25% were discharged. There were no clinically significant changes in VA, IOP and visual field performance during follow-up. 72% of patients expressed a preference to continue their care within VGCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that VGCs with expanded patient eligibility criteria can deliver high-quality glaucoma care that is safe, effective and with high levels of patient satisfaction. This approach provides a long-term solution to adapt delivery of glaucoma care to our expanding and ageing population.

A virtual-clinic pathway for patients referred from a national diabetes eye screening programme reduces service demands whilst maintaining quality of care.

AIM: To evaluate the potential of an integrated virtual medical retina clinic in secondary care for diabetic patients screened and referred by the UK National Diabetic Eye Screening Program (DESP). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included diabetic patients referred by the DESP to either a virtual or a traditional doctor's appointment (face-to-face, F2F) at the Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK) between January 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that qualified for a virtual-clinic appointment according to hospital guidance. Secondary outcomes included the rate of attendance, mean time from DESP referral to initial hospital appointment, mean time-to-discharge and -to-treatment of either panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: We included 12,563 patients in this study. While 8833 patients (70.7%) would have qualified for a virtual appointment according to local triage guidance, only 2306 (18.4%) were referred to a virtual consultation due to capacity constraints. For routine referrals, mean time to the first hospital appointment was 66.9 days with a standard deviation of ±35.9 and 80.9 ± 44.4 days for a virtual and a F2F consultation, respectively. The mean time from referral to discharge to community was 71.7 ± 30.8 and 86.3 ± 37.0 days for a virtual and a F2F consultation, respectively. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the mean time-to-treatment in the sub-cohort that required intravitreal therapy for maculopathy (virtual clinics: 220.7 ± 84.8; F2F: 178.0 days ± 80.7; p value > 0.05). Moreover, we observed a non-inferior attendance rate in virtual as compared to F2F clinics. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of diabetic patients referred to a F2F clinic could initially be managed in a virtual clinic. Increasing the adoption of virtual clinics in the management of diabetic patients that do not need long-term management or monitoring in secondary services may help alleviate service demands without diminishing quality of clinical care. Collectively, our analyses suggest that virtual consultations are a faster and clinically appropriate alternative for a substantial proportion of diabetic patients.

Ten-year outcomes of antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: Single center, noninterventional cohort study to assess 10-year visual and anatomical outcomes following initiation of treatment with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients. Neovascular AMD patients initiated on intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in 2008-2009 and continued to be followed up for at least 10 years were included in this study. METHODS: The Moorfields OpenEyes database was searched for all patients who were initiated on anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular AMD in 2008-2009 and the visual acuity (VA) in Early Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters and injection records were analyzed for those who have had at least 10-year follow-up. The spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scans, color fundus photos, and fundus fluorescein angiography (FA) were graded by two retinal physicians. The outcomes were also compared between those with good and poor VA outcomes based on pre-defined criteria. The primary end point was change in VA at 10 years; secondary outcomes included percentage with VA of 20/40 or better, 20/70 or better, VA gains and losses, anatomic outcomes and number of injections. RESULTS: After a mean of 10.04 years after initiation of anti-VEGF therapy, the mean decline in VA from baseline was -2.1 ETDRS letters (SD 19.9, p = 0.65). One hundred eyes (67.1%) achieved a VA threshold of 20/70 or better, 33.5% achieved a VA of 20/40 or better, and 76.5% eyes maintained VA defined as a loss of less than 15 letters. Fourteen percent of study eyes had VA of 20/200 or worse and 23.5% declined by 15 letters or more. 87.5% of eyes were switched from ranibizumab to aflibercept during the course of 10 years and the eyes received a mean of 52.2 (SD 18.1) injections over 10 years. From this cohort, 87 (58.3%) eyes are having on-going treatment. On OCT, 34.9% had persistent fluid at the last visit, 6.7% patients showed new onset atrophy compared to baseline, and 43.7% had increased area of macular atrophy. The mean area of atrophy at the final visit was 4.15 mm2. Comparison between the good and worse visual outcome groups showed lower baseline VA, fovea-involving atrophy and final area of atrophy had a statistically significant negative effect on the final visual outcome (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Regular monitoring and anti-VEGF treatment over 10 years reduce the risk of visual loss of 15 letters or more in patients with neovascular AMD. The most common cause of substantial visual decline was macular atrophy.

Clinical Outcomes of a Hospital-Based Teleophthalmology Service: What Happens to Patients in a Virtual Clinic?

PURPOSE: Demographic changes as well as increasing referral rates from national screening services put pressure on available ophthalmologic resources in the United Kingdom. To improve resource allocation, virtual medical retina clinics were introduced in 2016 in Moorfields Eye Hospital, South Division. The scope of this work was to assess clinical outcomes of patients followed up in a virtual clinic setting. DESIGN: Retrospective database study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients booked for a consecutive appointment in our virtual medical retina clinic. METHODS: Seven hundred twenty-eight patients booked for their second virtual clinic appointment in a tertiary eye care referral center between November 2016 and July 2018 were identified retrospectively from our electronic health records and patient administration systems. Information about disease grade and clinical and visual outcomes was assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcome of the virtual clinic visit, including virtual follow-up, urgent referral to face-to-face clinic, or discharge. RESULTS: Seven hundred twelve of 728 patients received a clinical outcome. Four hundred ninety-seven patients (70%) were eligible for further virtual follow-up after the second virtual clinic visit, whereas 15% each (107 and 108 patients) were either discharged or referred to a face-to-face clinic. In total, 661 patients attended their appointments in person and were reviewed by trained staff. Seventeen patients were referred for urgent treatment and 8 patients were not suitable for virtual follow-up. In 542 (82%) of all patients, diabetic retinopathy was the most common diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports clinical outcomes of a virtual model of care for medical retina clinics that imply safety of patient care in this clinic setting. This clinic format optimizes the use of already available resources and increases the skills of our existing workforce while maintaining high-quality clinical standards.

Implementation of medical retina virtual clinics in a tertiary eye care referral centre.

BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of medical retinal diseases has created capacity issues across UK. In this study, we describe the implementation and outcomes of virtual medical retina clinics (VMRCs) at Moorfields Eye Hospital, South Division, London. It represents a promising solution to ensure that patients are seen and treated in a timely fashion METHODS: First attendances in the VMRC (September 2016-May 2017) were included. It was open to non-urgent external referrals and to existing patients in a face-to-face clinic (F2FC). All patients received visual acuity testing, dilated fundus photography and optical coherence tomography scans. Grading was performed by consultants, fellows and allied healthcare professionals. Outcomes of these virtual consultations and reasons for F2FC referrals were assessed. RESULTS: A total number of 1729 patients were included (1543 were internal and 186 external referrals). The majority were diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy (75.1% of internal and 46.8% of external referrals). Of the internal referrals, 14.6% were discharged, 54.5% continued in VMRC and 30.9% were brought to a F2FC. Of the external referrals, 45.5% were discharged, 37.1% continued in VMRC and 17.4% were brought to a F2FC. The main reason for F2FC referrals was image quality (34.7%), followed by detection of potentially treatable disease (20.2%). CONCLUSION: VMRC can be implemented successfully using existing resources within a hospital eye service. It may also serve as a first-line rapid-access clinic for low-risk referrals. This would enable medical retinal services to cope with increasing demand and efficiently allocate resources to those who require treatment.