The Effectiveness of a Mobile Clinic in Improving Follow-up Eye Care for At-Risk Children.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of a mobile ophthalmic unit in the schoolyard to improve the follow-up rate for children who have failed an optometric in-school screening program. Previously, the optometric program made referrals to the center and only 53% of students attended the desired ophthalmology consultation. METHODS: This was a cohort study of students conducted in elementary school lots in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. The mobile ophthalmic unit visited schools where students with parental consent who needed examination had been identified by an in-school optometric vision care program. RESULTS: A total of 132 students were referred by the optometric program, of whom 95 (72%) had complete signed consent forms. Eighty-two patients (62%, confidence interval: 54% to 70%) were successfully seen by the mobile unit. Compared to the historical rate of successful completion of ophthalmology consultation (53%), a statistically significant improvement in follow-up was noted (P = .036). On a Likert scale of 1 to 5, the mean school nurse satisfaction rating was 4.8. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the potential impact of mobile eye clinics at schools in connecting children with ophthalmic care. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2016;53(6):344-348.].

The Eagles Eye Mobile: assessing its ability to deliver eye care in a high-risk community.

PURPOSE: The Philadelphia Eagle Eye Mobile (EEM) provides optometric vision care to children who fail a vision screening performed by nurses at schools in low-income areas. METHODS: Data for children seen on the EEM between 2006 and 2008 for whom school nurse feedback was available regarding glasses wear at 1-, 4-, and 12-month intervals served as the study population. Optometric findings and glasses prescriptions at initial examination were recorded in the EEM database. The ophthalmic records for children referred for pediatric ophthalmology consultation at our institution were reviewed and those who did not attend were counted. RESULTS: A random subset of 689 students at 28 different schools at which follow-up forms were distributed to the school nurses regarding glasses wear was studied. This represents 10.8% of 6,365 children screened at 131 public schools visited by the EEM during that period. False-positive rates of school nurse screening averaged 16.11% (0% to 44%) for 689 children from 28 schools. Glasses compliance was 71% at 12 months and correlated to higher prescriptions. Only 53% of children attended their pediatric ophthalmology referral. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse training to reduce false-positive screening and strategies to improve attendance at arranged pediatric ophthalmologist consultations are recommended. The EEM effectively gets glasses to students where needed and use rates are satisfactory.

Outcomes of an inner-city vision outreach program: give kids sight day.

IMPORTANCE: Low-socioeconomic urban children often do not have access to ophthalmic care. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographic characteristics and ophthalmic conditions in children attending Give Kids Sight Day (GKSD), an outreach ophthalmic care program held annually in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, providing vision screening and immediate treatment when needed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective case-series study of children attending GKSD in 2012 (GKSD 2012) at an ophthalmology center in Philadelphia. Registration forms and records of all children attending GKSD 2012 were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, insurance status, spoken languages, reasons for attending, prior failure of vision screening, and attendance pattern of previous events were analyzed. The ophthalmological findings of these children were examined, including refractive errors, need for optical correction, and diagnoses for which continuous ophthalmic care was necessary. For children who needed ophthalmic follow-up, the rate of return to clinic and barriers for continuous care were analyzed. RESULTS: We studied 924 children (mean age, 9 years; age range, 0-18 years; 51% female; 25% speaking a non-English language) coming from 584 families who attended GKSD 2012, of whom 27% were uninsured and 10% were not aware of their insurance status. Forty-two percent of participants had public insurance, which covered vision care and glasses, but 35% did not know their benefits and did not realize vision care was covered. Forty-nine percent of children attended because they failed community vision screening. Provision of free glasses and failure of previous vision screening were the most common reasons families elected to attend GKSD (64% and 49%, respectively). Eighty-five percent of children attended GKSD 2012 for the first time, whereas 15% attended prior events. Glasses were provided to 61% of attendees. Ten percent of the attendees needed continuous ophthalmic care, most commonly for amblyopia. Ten children needed ocular surgery for cataract, strabismus, nystagmus, ptosis, or nasolacrimal duct obstruction. With the assistance of a social worker, 59% of children requiring continuous treatment returned to the clinic, compared with 2% in prior years before social worker intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Programs such as GKSD can bridge the gap between successful vision screening and ophthalmic treatment, a gap that often occurs in low-socioeconomic urban populations. Those with public insurance coverage for vision services may not realize these services are covered. Social worker intervention is useful in overcoming common barriers to follow-up care.

The challenges to ophthalmologic follow-up care in at-risk pediatric populations.

PURPOSE: To identify barriers to ophthalmological follow-up in high-risk children who are identified by vision screening and eye examination. METHODS: The records of patients identified as needing follow-up through two free eye care programs (organized optometric and ophthalmologic screening sessions aimed at identifying and treating ocular pathology) targeted toward inner-city youths of low socioeconomic status were reviewed. Parents were contacted by phone, and a questionnaire on barriers to follow-up was administered. Callers attempted to schedule appointments at that time. Data were assessed by means of descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 54 (58%), were successfully contacted. Of these, 23 (25%) were eventually scheduled. Five (5%) patients elected follow-up elsewhere. Twenty (22%) with working phones were still unable to be scheduled. Additional obstacles included families' lack of awareness of the need for follow-up (13%), assumption by families that they would be contacted (5%), scheduling conflicts (4%), concerns about insurance, and difficulty finalizing referrals (2%). A total of 39 patients (42%) were not successfully contacted because of inoperable phone services, and none of the families responded to the mailed questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Inability to contact families was the greatest barrier to follow-up. Our findings suggest that immediate arrangement of follow-up care, on-site visual assessment, and a program director may be useful in increasing follow-up for high-risk children.