Accuracy of Ophthalmology Clinic Follow-Up in the Incarcerated Patient Population.

Michelle M Abou-Jaoude, Jessica Crawford, Richard J Kryscio, Daniel B Moore
{"title":"Accuracy of Ophthalmology Clinic Follow-Up in the Incarcerated Patient Population.","authors":"Michelle M Abou-Jaoude,&nbsp;Jessica Crawford,&nbsp;Richard J Kryscio,&nbsp;Daniel B Moore","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1758562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  Incarcerated patients represent a uniquely vulnerable population in the outpatient ophthalmology setting, and the reliability of follow-up in this group is undetermined. <b>Methods</b>  This was a retrospective, observational chart review of consecutive incarcerated patients evaluated at the ophthalmology clinic of a single academic medical center between July 2012 and September 2016. For each encounter the following were recorded: patient age, gender, incarcerated status at the time of encounter (a subset of patients had encounters before/after incarceration), interventions performed, follow-up interval requested, urgency of follow-up, and actual time to subsequent follow-up. Primary outcome measures were no-show rate and timeliness, which was defined as follow-up within 1.5× the requested period. <b>Results</b>  There were 489 patients included during the study period, representing a total of 2,014 clinical encounters. Of the 489 patients, 189 (38.7%) were seen once. Of the remaining 300 patients with more than one encounter, 184 (61.3%) ultimately did not return and only 24 (8%) were always on time for every encounter. Of 1,747 encounters with specific follow-up requested, 1,072 were considered timely (61.3%). Factors significantly associated with subsequent loss to follow-up include whether a procedure was performed ( <i>p</i>  < 0.0001), urgency of follow-up ( <i>p</i>  < 0.0001), incarcerated status ( <i>p</i>  = 0.0408), and whether follow-up was requested ( <i>p</i>  < 0.0001). <b>Conclusion</b>  Almost two-thirds of incarcerated patients in our population requiring repeat examination were lost to follow-up, particularly those who underwent an intervention or required more urgent follow-up. Patients entering and exiting the penal system were less likely to follow-up while incarcerated. Further work is needed to understand how these gaps compare to those in the general population and to identify means of improving these outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e258-e262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a6/7a/10-1055-s-0042-1758562.PMC9927990.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose  Incarcerated patients represent a uniquely vulnerable population in the outpatient ophthalmology setting, and the reliability of follow-up in this group is undetermined. Methods  This was a retrospective, observational chart review of consecutive incarcerated patients evaluated at the ophthalmology clinic of a single academic medical center between July 2012 and September 2016. For each encounter the following were recorded: patient age, gender, incarcerated status at the time of encounter (a subset of patients had encounters before/after incarceration), interventions performed, follow-up interval requested, urgency of follow-up, and actual time to subsequent follow-up. Primary outcome measures were no-show rate and timeliness, which was defined as follow-up within 1.5× the requested period. Results  There were 489 patients included during the study period, representing a total of 2,014 clinical encounters. Of the 489 patients, 189 (38.7%) were seen once. Of the remaining 300 patients with more than one encounter, 184 (61.3%) ultimately did not return and only 24 (8%) were always on time for every encounter. Of 1,747 encounters with specific follow-up requested, 1,072 were considered timely (61.3%). Factors significantly associated with subsequent loss to follow-up include whether a procedure was performed ( p  < 0.0001), urgency of follow-up ( p  < 0.0001), incarcerated status ( p  = 0.0408), and whether follow-up was requested ( p  < 0.0001). Conclusion  Almost two-thirds of incarcerated patients in our population requiring repeat examination were lost to follow-up, particularly those who underwent an intervention or required more urgent follow-up. Patients entering and exiting the penal system were less likely to follow-up while incarcerated. Further work is needed to understand how these gaps compare to those in the general population and to identify means of improving these outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监禁患者群体眼科临床随访的准确性。
目的:在门诊眼科中,被监禁的患者是一个独特的弱势群体,这一群体的随访可靠性尚不确定。方法回顾性分析2012年7月至2016年9月在某学术医疗中心眼科门诊评估的连续嵌顿患者的观察图。每次就诊记录如下:患者的年龄、性别、就诊时的监禁状态(一部分患者在就诊前或就诊后)、进行的干预措施、要求的随访时间间隔、随访的紧迫性以及到后续随访的实际时间。主要结局指标为缺勤率和及时性,定义为在1.5倍要求时间内随访。结果研究期间共纳入489例患者,共涉及2014次临床就诊。489例患者中189例(38.7%)见过一次。在剩下的300名不止一次就诊的患者中,184名(61.3%)最终没有回来,只有24名(8%)每次都按时就诊。在1,747例要求进行具体随访的病例中,1,072例被认为是及时的(61.3%)。与后续随访损失显著相关的因素包括是否进行了手术(p p p = 0.0408),以及是否要求随访(p结论:在我们的人群中,近三分之二需要重复检查的被监禁患者未能随访,特别是那些接受了干预或需要更紧急随访的患者。进入和离开刑罚系统的患者在监禁期间跟进的可能性较小。需要进一步的工作来了解这些差距与一般人群的差距如何比较,并确定改善这些结果的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data. Self-Reported Perceptions of Preparedness among Incoming Ophthalmology Residents. The Matthew Effect: Prevalence of Doctor and Physician Parents among Ophthalmology Applicants. Gender Representation on North American Ophthalmology Societies' Governance Boards. The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1