ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency and associated costs of a digital cataract workflow system and manual cataract workflow system for patients, with astigmatism presenting for cataract surgery in Brisbane, Australia. Patients and Methods: Sixty patients with bilateral cataract requiring toric intraocular lenses (IOL) were sequentially assigned to a manual cataract workflow (n = 30) or digital workflow (n = 30) using EQ Workplace (SW v1.7.0) running on FORUM (SW v.4.2.1.66) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Each step of preoperative data acquisition and analysis was timed. Steps in each workflow were divided into presurgical planning time and total workflow time, the latter including the time required to input toric data into CALLISTO eye (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Secondary outcomes included staff costs within each workflow. Results: Median presurgical planning time using a digital workflow process was 6.51 ± 0.65 minutes, and using a manual workflow process, 12.32 ± 0.56 minutes (p < 0.001). Similarly, median total workflow time using a digital workflow process was 6.93 ± 0.57 minutes and using a manual workflow process, 13.49 ± 0.47 minutes (p < 0.001). Evaluating the staff remuneration during presurgical planning and the operating costs associated with running EQ Workplace, there was a cost-reduction of 35% per patient when using the digital cataract workflow process. Conclusion: Using a digital cataract workflow process is more efficient and provides staff cost-savings compared to a manual workflow process when planning for toric IOL implantation.
The prevalence of both cataracts and cataract surgery is known to be increasing in Australia and other economically developed countries. During cataract surgery, an individual's natural lens is removed, and an artificial lens (known as an intraocular lens or IOL) is inserted. Many patients elect to correct their astigmatism at the time of their cataract surgery by choosing to have a specific type of IOL, called a toric lens, implanted, which should reduce their dependence on spectacles following surgery. Ophthalmology clinics and clinical staff can spend significant time accurately planning and selecting a toric IOL in preparation for surgery. We evaluated the time spent on toric IOL planning in a digital workflow versus a manual workflow. There was a significant reduction in time (and therefore reduced staffing costs) with the digital workflow. Digital workflows offer improved efficiency and can be more cost-effective, both of which are important when meeting the increasing demands and rates of cataract surgery.
ABSTRACT
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Valid and updated clinical indicators can serve as important tools in assessing and improving eyecare delivery. BACKGROUND: Indicators for diabetic eyecare in Australia were previously developed from guidelines published before 2013 and then used to assess the appropriateness of care delivery through a nationwide patient record card audit (the iCareTrack study). To reflect emerging evidence and contemporary practice, this study aimed to update clinical indicators for optometric care for people with type 2 diabetes in Australia. METHODS: Forty-five candidate indicators, including existing iCareTrack and new indicators derived from nine high-quality evidence-based guidelines, were generated. A two-round modified Delphi process where expert panel members rated the impact, acceptability, and feasibility of the indicators on a 9-point scale and voted for inclusion or exclusion of the candidate indicators was used. Consensus on inclusion was reached when the median scores for impact, acceptability, and feasibility were ≥7 and >75% of experts voted for inclusion. RESULTS: Thirty-two clinical indicators with high acceptability, impact and feasibility ratings (all median scores: 9) were developed. The final indicators were related to history taking (n = 12), physical examination (n = 8), recall period (n = 5), referral (n = 5), and patient education/communication (n = 2). Most (14 of 15) iCareTrack indicators were retained either in the original format or with modifications. New indicators included documenting the type of diabetes, serum lipid level, pregnancy, systemic medications, nephropathy, Indigenous status, general practitioner details, pupil examination, intraocular pressure, optical coherence tomography, diabetic retinopathy grading, recall period for high-risk diabetic patients without retinopathy, referral of high-risk proliferative retinopathy, communication with the general practitioner, and patient education. CONCLUSION: A set of 32 updated diabetic eyecare clinical indicators was developed based on contemporary evidence and expert consensus. These updated indicators inform the development of programs to assess and enhance the eyecare delivery for people with diabetes in Australia.
