ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: the need for social distancing midst the COVID-19 pandemic has forced ophthalmologists to innovate with telemedicine. The novel process of triaging emergency ophthalmology patients via videoconsultations should reduce hospital attendances. However, the safety profile of such services were unknown. METHODS: in this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed case notes of 404 adults who used our videoconsultation service from 20/04/2020 to 03/05/2020. We compared these to 451 patient who attended eye casualty in person at the same time who were deemed not to require same day ophthalmic examination. FINDINGS: patients seen by videoconsultations tended to be younger (Median = 43 years, Inter-quartile range = 27 vs Median= 49 years, Inter-quartile range = 28)'. More males used the face-to-face triage (55%) while more females used videoconsultation (54%)%. Fewer patients seen by videoconsultations required specialist review compared to face-face triage [X 2 (1, N = 854) = 128.02, p<0.001)]. 35.5% of the patients initially seen by videoconsultation had unplanned reattendance within 1 month, compared to 15.7% in the group initially seen in person. X 2 (1, N = 234) = 7.31, p = 0.007). The rate of actual harm was no different (at 0% for each method), with perfect inter-grader correlation when graded independently by two senior ophthalmologists. 97% of patients seen on the video platform surveyed were satisfied with their care. INTERPRETATION: we demonstrate comparable patient safety of videoconsultations at one-month follow-up to in person review. The service is acceptable to patients and reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission. We propose that videoconsultations are effective and desirable as a tool for triage in ophthalmology. FUNDING: the research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology who fund PT and DS's time to conduct research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To determine if patients with failing kidney transplants who opt to have peritoneal dialysis (PD) have poor short-term PD technique survival and increased rates of peritonitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis comparing 50 consecutive patients starting PD after a failed kidney transplant to 93 incident patients starting PD (matching for age, gender, diabetes causing renal failure, ethnicity and year of starting PD). RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 26 months. PD technique survival was lower for the post-transplant cohort. However, this did not appear to be related to PD peritonitis risk; infection rate was lower in the post-transplant group albeit not statistically significant (1 in 23.6 patient months vs 1 in 22.5 patient months). There were no differences in the proportion of Gram positive: Gran negative: Culture Negative infections. The only fungal peritonitis occurred in a Control patient. Results of baseline Peritoneal Equilibration Tests were not different; D/Pcr was 0.69 for post-TP versus 0.64 for Control (P = ns), and net UF was 250 mL for post-TP versus 310 mL for Control (P = ns). PET results after 12 months were also similar. CONCLUSION: Our study found a small but significantly higher rate of PD technique failure in the post-transplant cohort, but this did not appear to be related to peritonitis rates or peritoneal membrane function. Further studies are required to explore reasons for PD technique failure in patients who have had kidney transplant, but our study supports the use of PD in selected patient from this cohort.
