Assessing the efficacy of 3D-printed ear protectors on mask adherence at an academic ophthalmology center.

PURPOSE: In the ophthalmology setting, given the close proximity required for the clinical exam, appropriate mask usage and fit is essential. This study aims to assess how a simple, cost-effective 3D-printed face mask ear protectors (EP) attachment may decrease discomfort, increase compliance, and improve fit in an academic institution's Ophthalmology department. METHODS: Face mask EPs were distributed to patients and providers in the Ophthalmology department. A validated questionnaire was administered before and 2 weeks after EP usage. The survey included questions on demographics and frequency of mask usage during a spectrum of activities. Descriptive statistics were performed with Fischer's t test. RESULTS: Post-EP responses demonstrated an increased likelihood of mask usage across all activities, although not statistically significant. The greatest change was during outdoor activities, with a 14.3% increase in highest utilization. Post-EP, all subjects were very likely to wear masks while shopping and 91.7% while in the workplace. EP usage decreased the number of noncompliant individuals while spending time with friends and family by 93.3%. Almost no subjects reported mask removal of >15 times per hour post-EP. The increase in mask compliance was greatest for low mask utilizers. 91.9% reported improved comfort, 91.9% reported improved fit, and 81.6% reported increased mask usage. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that simple cost-effective 3D-printed ear protectors may improve fit, comfort, and overall mask compliance. The results of this study should drive broader public health efforts to further investigate whether mask attachments can improve overall mask compliance through better comfort and fit.

Confidence of ophthalmology residents in obtaining informed consent.

UNLABELLED: Ophthalmology residents often obtain informed consent for common procedures. In this study, we set out to determine the confidence levels among ophthalmology residents who obtain informed consent. An anonymous online survey was distributed to United States ophthalmology residents across the country. Ninety-five residents participated, evenly distributed geographically and by postgraduate year (PGY). Residents were frequently obtaining consent for procedures despite not being comfortable doing so. Only 18% of residents reported that they always felt comfortable with the informed consent process. Comfort level increased significantly with PGY (P < .001) and prior training in informed consent (P = .032). Of the residents surveyed, 76% indicated a desire for more formal training in the consent process. Most residents would welcome an informed-consent formal training curriculum, which would address 5 of the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies and meet resident milestones in the Next Accreditation System. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Ophthalmology resident selection: current trends in selection criteria and improving the process.

OBJECTIVE: To document and assess current ophthalmology resident selection practices as well as to initiate discussion on how best to improve the process. DESIGN: Online survey comprising 56 questions. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors, chairpersons, or members of the resident selection committee representing 65 United States ophthalmology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education. METHODS: Study participants completed an online, anonymous survey consisting primarily of multiple choice questions, with single or multiple answers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ophthalmology resident selection practices were evaluated and included: screening of applications, interview processes, selection factors, and formation of rank lists; recommendations given to applicants; and respondent satisfaction with the current selection process. RESULTS: As a group, survey respondents deemed the following factors most important in resident selection: interview performance (95.4%), clinical course grades (93.9%), letters of recommendation (83.1%), and board scores (80%). Statistical analyses deemed that the best predictors of resident performance are interviews, clinical course grades, recommendation letters, and ophthalmology rotation performance. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmology resident selection is a relatively subjective process, continuing to rely heavily on cognitive factors. Because these factors are not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it would be helpful if ophthalmology training programs improved selection practices to discern who most likely will become a successful resident and future ophthalmologist. Long-term studies correlating applicant attributes with residency and postresidency success are needed to recommend guidelines for a more standardized selection process.