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










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) ; 11(3): 258-266, 2022 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34923520

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Picture archiving and communication system (PACS) is a medical imaging system for sharing, storage, retrieval, and access of medical images stored. Our study aimed to identify ophthalmologists' views on PACS, with the comparison between 3 platforms, namely electronic patient record (ePR), HEYEX (Heidelberg Engineering, Switzerland), and FORUM (Zeiss, US), following their implementation in an eye hospital for common ophthalmic investigations [visual field, optical coherence tomography (OCT) of retinal nerve fiber layer and macula, and fluorescein/indocyanine green angiography (FA/ICG)]. METHODS: An online survey was distributed among ophthalmologists in a single center. Primary outcome included comparison of PACS with paper-based system. Secondary outcomes included pattern of use and comparison of different PACS platforms. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 28/37 (75.7%). Images were most commonly accessed through ePR (median: 80% of time, interquartile range: 50 to 90%).All systems scored highly in information display items (median scores ≥7.5 out of 10) and in reducing patient identification error in investigation filing and retrieval during consultation compared to paper (score ≥7.0). However, ePR was inferior to paper in "facilitating comparison with previous results" in all investigation types (scores 3.0 to 4.5). ePR scored significantly higher in all system quality items than HEYEX ( P  < 0.001) and FORUM ( P  < 0.022), except login response time ( P  = 0.081). HEYEX scored significantly higher among vitreoretinaluveitis members (VRU) for information quality items for OCT macula and FA/ICG [VRU: 10.0 (8.0 to 10.0), non-VRU: 8.0 (6.75 to 9.25), P  = 0.042]. CONCLUSIONS: Overall feedback for PACS among ophthalmologists was positive, with limitations of inefficiency in use of information, for example, comparison with previous results. Subspecialty played an important role in evaluating PACS.


Subject(s)
Ophthalmologists , Radiology Information Systems , Hospitals , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Clin Ophthalmol ; 12: 885-893, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29785084

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify residents' perceived barriers to learning phacoemulsification surgical procedures and to evaluate whether virtual reality simulation training changed these perceptions. DESIGN: The ophthalmology residents undertook a simulation phacoemulsification course and proficiency assessment on the Eyesi system using the previously validated training modules of intracapsular navigation, anti-tremor, capsulorrhexis, and cracking/chopping. A cross-sectional, multicenter survey on the perceived difficulties in performing phacoemulsification tasks on patients, based on the validated International Council of Ophthalmology's Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric (ICO-OSCAR), using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = least and 5 = most difficulty), was conducted among residents with or without prior simulation training. Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out to compare the mean scores, and multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of lower scores with the following potential predictors: 1) higher level trainee, 2) can complete phacoemulsification most of the time (>90%) without supervisor's intervention, and 3) prior simulation training. SETTING: The study was conducted in ophthalmology residency training programs in five regional hospitals in Hong Kong. RESULTS: Of the 22 residents, 19 responded (86.3%), of which 13 (68.4%) had completed simulation training. Nucleus cracking/chopping was ranked highest in difficulty by all respondents followed by capsulorrhexis completion and nucleus rotation/manipulation. Respondents with prior simulation training had significantly lower difficulty scores on these three tasks (nucleus cracking/chopping 3.85 vs 4.75, P = 0.03; capsulorrhexis completion 3.31 vs 4.40, P = 0.02; and nucleus rotation/manipulation 3.00 vs 4.75, P = 0.01). In multivariate analyses, simulation training was significantly associated with lower difficulty scores on these three tasks. CONCLUSION: Residents who had completed Eyesi simulation training had higher confidence in performing the most difficult tasks perceived during phacoemulsification.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...