Implementation of a Teleophthalmology Screening Program for Diabetic Retinopathy in New York City

IF 0.5 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases Pub Date : 2023-12-18 DOI:10.1177/24741264231208253
Pamela Capellan, Alexander B. Dillon, Geoff Rodriguez, Jason Chua, M. Mahrous, Kyle Kovacs, Sarah Van Tassel, Donald J. D’Amico, Szilárd Kiss, A. Orlin
{"title":"Implementation of a Teleophthalmology Screening Program for Diabetic Retinopathy in New York City","authors":"Pamela Capellan, Alexander B. Dillon, Geoff Rodriguez, Jason Chua, M. Mahrous, Kyle Kovacs, Sarah Van Tassel, Donald J. D’Amico, Szilárd Kiss, A. Orlin","doi":"10.1177/24741264231208253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To examine the implementation of a teleophthalmology program for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening at a metropolitan hospital system and identify the challenges that the clinical teams encountered using the program. Methods: The study was conducted in 2 parts. The first was a pilot retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients screened for DR by the teleophthalmology screening program. The baseline variables, DR capture rate and staging, and continuity of care for those diagnosed with DR were analyzed. The second was a web-based survey identifying the barriers encountered by 36 physicians and clinical staff as they participated in the teleophthalmology screening program. Results: Part 1: Of the patients evaluated, 57 (19.0%) were diagnosed with DR; 42 (73.7%) had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 7 (12.3%) had moderate NPDR, none had severe NPDR, and 8 (14.0%) had PDR. Thirty-one patients (54.4%) with retinopathy diagnoses were referred for an in-person follow-up at the clinic while the rest continued monitoring via the program. Of this subset, 22 (71.0%) completed the follow-up visit. Part 2: The survey respondents comprised 28 physicians (77.8%), 6 licensed nurse practitioners (16.7%), and 2 medical assistants (5.6%). Twenty-two providers (71.0%) preferred initiating referrals for in-person annual examinations over teleophthalmology screening referrals. The most common barriers described were related to workflow interruption, time constraints, and staff shortages. Conclusions: The teleophthalmology DR screening program allowed identification of early or absent DR at clinics in an urban setting (New York City). The findings suggest areas for targeted improvement in the screening program to better complement internal referral practices’ workflows.","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":"45 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264231208253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the implementation of a teleophthalmology program for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening at a metropolitan hospital system and identify the challenges that the clinical teams encountered using the program. Methods: The study was conducted in 2 parts. The first was a pilot retrospective chart review of 300 consecutive patients screened for DR by the teleophthalmology screening program. The baseline variables, DR capture rate and staging, and continuity of care for those diagnosed with DR were analyzed. The second was a web-based survey identifying the barriers encountered by 36 physicians and clinical staff as they participated in the teleophthalmology screening program. Results: Part 1: Of the patients evaluated, 57 (19.0%) were diagnosed with DR; 42 (73.7%) had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 7 (12.3%) had moderate NPDR, none had severe NPDR, and 8 (14.0%) had PDR. Thirty-one patients (54.4%) with retinopathy diagnoses were referred for an in-person follow-up at the clinic while the rest continued monitoring via the program. Of this subset, 22 (71.0%) completed the follow-up visit. Part 2: The survey respondents comprised 28 physicians (77.8%), 6 licensed nurse practitioners (16.7%), and 2 medical assistants (5.6%). Twenty-two providers (71.0%) preferred initiating referrals for in-person annual examinations over teleophthalmology screening referrals. The most common barriers described were related to workflow interruption, time constraints, and staff shortages. Conclusions: The teleophthalmology DR screening program allowed identification of early or absent DR at clinics in an urban setting (New York City). The findings suggest areas for targeted improvement in the screening program to better complement internal referral practices’ workflows.
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
在纽约市实施糖尿病视网膜病变远程眼科筛查计划
目的: 研究一家都市医院系统实施远程眼科项目进行糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)筛查的情况,并确定临床团队在使用该项目时遇到的挑战。研究方法研究分两部分进行。第一部分是对远程眼科筛查项目连续筛查出的 300 名糖尿病视网膜病变患者进行试点回顾性病历审查。研究分析了基线变量、DR 采集率和分期,以及确诊为 DR 患者的持续护理。第二项是一项基于网络的调查,确定了 36 名医生和临床工作人员在参与远程眼科筛查项目时遇到的障碍。结果:第一部分:在接受评估的患者中,57 人(19.0%)被确诊为 DR;42 人(73.7%)患有轻度非增殖性 DR(NPDR),7 人(12.3%)患有中度 NPDR,没有人患有重度 NPDR,8 人(14.0%)患有 PDR。31名(54.4%)确诊视网膜病变的患者被转介到诊所进行现场随访,其余患者则继续通过该计划进行监测。其中 22 人(71.0%)完成了随访。第二部分:调查对象包括 28 名医生(77.8%)、6 名执业护士(16.7%)和 2 名医疗助理(5.6%)。与远程眼科筛查转介相比,22 名医疗服务提供者(71.0%)更倾向于转介亲自进行年度检查。最常见的障碍与工作流程中断、时间限制和人员短缺有关。结论:远程眼科 DR 筛查项目可在城市环境(纽约市)中的诊所识别早期或未出现的 DR。研究结果表明,筛查计划需要有针对性地进行改进,以更好地配合内部转诊诊所的工作流程。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Operative Times in Scleral Buckle Surgery: Influencing Factors and Cost Analysis. From the Editor-in-Chief. Clinical Profiles of Retinal Vasoproliferative Tumors. Serpiginous Choroiditis After COVID-19 Infection. Ischemic Retinopathy Associated With Mantle Cell Lymphoma-Induced Vascular Occlusion.
×
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