Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)最新文献

Introduction  Ophthalmology residency positions remain competitive. A lack of clarity regarding which residency selection criteria are prioritized by program directors can heighten the stress associated with the match process. While surveys of program directors in several other medical specialties have been conducted to identify the most important residency selection criteria, there is limited data on selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors. The purpose of our study was to survey ophthalmology residency program directors to identify the current state of interview selection decisions-the factors currently considered most important in determining whether to extend an interview invitation to residency applicants. Methods  We developed and distributed a Web-based questionnaire to all U.S. ophthalmology residency program directors. Questions evaluated program demographics and the relative importance of 23 different selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors when evaluating applicants for residency interviews (Likert scale 1-5, with 1 being "not important" and 5 being "very important"). Program directors were also asked to identify the one factor they felt was most important. Results  The overall residency program director response rate was 56.5% (70/124). The selection criteria with the highest average importance scores were core clinical clerkship grades (4.26/5) followed by letters of recommendation (4.06/5), and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score (4.03/5). The most frequently cited single most important factor for interview selection was core clinical clerkship grades (18/70, 25.7%), with USMLE Step 1 score (9/70, 12.9%) and rotations at the program director's department (6/70, 8.6%) also commonly reported. Conclusion  Our results suggest that core clinical clerkship grades, letters of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 scores are deemed the most important selection criteria by ophthalmology residency program directors as of a 2021 survey. With changes in clerkship grading for many medical schools and changes in national USMLE Step 1 score reporting, programs will face challenges in evaluating applicants and the relative importance of other selection criteria will likely increase.

Purpose  Prior studies have revealed grading discrepancies in evaluation of personal statements and letters of recommendation based on candidate's race and gender. Fatigue and the end-of-day phenomenon can negatively impact task performance but have not been studied in the residency selection process. Our primary objective is to determine whether factors related to interview time and day as well as candidate's and interviewer's gender have a significant effect on residency interview scores. Methods  Seven years of ophthalmology residency candidate evaluation scores from 2013 to 2019 were collected at a single academic institution, standardized by interviewer into relative percentiles (0-100 point grading scale), and grouped into the following categories for comparisons: different interview days (Day 1 vs. Day 2), morning versus afternoon (AM vs. PM), interview session (Day 1 AM/PM vs. Day 2 AM/PM), before and after breaks (morning break, lunch break, and afternoon break), residency candidate's gender, and interviewer's gender. Results  Candidates in the morning sessions were found to have higher scores than afternoon sessions (52.75 vs. 49.28, p  < 0.001). Interview scores in the early morning, late morning, and early afternoon were higher than late afternoon scores (54.47, 53.01, 52.15 vs. 46.74, p  < 0.001). Across all interview years, there were no differences in scores received before and after morning breaks (51.71 vs. 52.83, p  = 0.49), lunch breaks (53.01 vs. 52.15, p  = 0.58), and afternoon breaks (50.35 vs. 48.30, p  = 0.21). No differences were found in scores received by female versus male candidates (51.55 vs. 50.49, p  = 0.21) or scores given by female versus male interviewers (51.31 vs. 50.84, p  = 0.58). Conclusion  Afternoon residency candidate interview scores, especially late afternoon, were significantly lower than morning scores, suggesting the need to further study the effects of interviewer's fatigue in the residency interview process. The interview day, presence of break times, candidate's gender, and interviewer's gender had no significant effects on interview score.

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.

Purpose  We assess the clinical accuracy of direct-to-patient real-time outpatient video visit encounters at our eye center. Design  This was a retrospective longitudinal study. Subjects and Methods  Patients who completed a video visit over a 3-week period between March and April 2020 were included. Accuracy assessment was determined by comparing diagnosis and management from the video visit with subsequent in-person follow-up over the next year. Results  A total of 210 patients (mean age 55±18 years) were included, of whom 172 (82%) were recommended a scheduled in-person follow-up encounter after their video visit. Among the 141 total patients who completed in-person follow-up, 137 (97%) had a diagnostic agreement between telemedicine and in-person evaluation. Management plan agreed for 116 (82%), with the remainder of visits either escalating or deescalating treatment upon in-person follow-up with little substantive change. Compared with established patients, new patients had higher diagnostic disagreement following video visits (12 vs. 1%, p =0.014). Acute visits trended toward more diagnostic disagreement compared with routine visits (6 vs. 1%, p =0.28) but had a similar rate of management change on follow-up (21 vs. 16%, p =0.48). New patients were more likely to have early unplanned follow-up than established patients (17 vs. 5%, p =0.029), and acute video visits were associated with unplanned early in-person assessments compared with routine video visits (13 vs. 3%, p =0.027). There were no serious adverse events associated with the use of our telemedicine program in the outpatient setting. Conclusions  Video visits had high diagnostic and management agreement with subsequent in-person follow-up encounters.

Purpose  The aim of this study was to evaluate the ophthalmology residency match results to determine changes in the rate of home-institution matches during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods  Aggregate deidentified summary match result data from 2017 to 2022 was obtained from the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology and the San Francisco (SF) Match. A chi-squared test was performed to determine if the rate of candidate matching to the home residency program in ophthalmology was higher in the post-COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 match years. A literature review using PubMed was performed of other medical subspecialty match rates to home institution during the same study period. Results  A chi-squared test for difference in proportions confirmed a significantly higher chance of matching to the home program for ophthalmology in the post-COVID-19, SF Match year of 2021 to 2022 compared with 2017 to 2020 ( p  = 0.001). Other medical specialties including otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and dermatology also showed similar increased home institution residency match rates during the same time period. Although neurosurgery and urology also had increased trend rates for home institution match rates, these results did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions  The ophthalmology home-institution residency SF Match rate was significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic year 2021 to 22. This mirrors a trend reported in other specialties including the otolaryngology, dermatology, and plastic surgery in the 2021 match. Additional study will be required to identify factors leading to this observation.

Importance  A same-day ophthalmic urgent care clinic can provide efficient eye care, a rich educational environment, and can improve patient experience. Objective  The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate volume, financial impact, care metrics, and the breadth of pathology of urgent new patient encounters based on their site of initial presentation. Design, Setting, and Participants  A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive urgent new patient evaluations in our same-day triage clinic at the Henkind Eye Institute at Montefiore Medical Center between February 2019 and January 2020. The cohort of patients who presented directly to this urgent care clinic were referred to as the "TRIAGE" group. Patients who initially presented to an emergency department (ED), and were subsequently referred to our triage clinic, are referred to as the "ED + TRIAGE" group. Main Outcomes and Measures  Visits were evaluated on a variety of metrics, including diagnosis, duration, charge, cost, and revenue. Furthermore, return to the ED or inpatient admission was documented. Results  Of 3,482 visits analyzed, 2,538 (72.9%) were in the "TRIAGE" group. Common presenting diagnoses were ocular surface disease ( n  = 486, 19.1%), trauma ( n  = 342, 13.5%; most commonly surface abrasion n  = 195, 7.7%), and infectious conjunctivitis ( n  = 304, 12.0%). Patients in the "TRIAGE" group, on average, were seen 184.6% faster (158.2 vs. 450.2 minutes) than patients in the "ED + TRIAGE" group ( p  < 0.001). The "ED + TRIAGE" group were furthermore found to generate 442.1% higher charges ($870.20 vs. 4717.70) and were associated with 175.1% higher cost ($908.80 vs. 330.40) per patient. The hospital was found to save money when noncommercially insured patients with ophthalmic complaints presented to the triage clinic instead of the ED. Patients seen in the triage clinic had a low rate of readmission to the ED ( n  = 42, 1.2%). Conclusions and Relevance  A same-day ophthalmology triage clinic provides efficient care, while providing a rich learning environment for residents. Less wait time with direct access to subspecialist care can help improve quality, outcome, and satisfaction metrics.

Purpose  To describe the cornea and keratorefractive surgeries experience of U.S. ophthalmology residents. Methods  Deidentified case logs of residents graduating in 2018 were collected from ophthalmology residency program directors in the United States. Using Current Procedure Terminology codes, case logs were reviewed in the categories of cornea and keratorefractive surgeries. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education national graduating resident surgical case logs on cornea procedures published from 2010 to 2020 were also analyzed. Results  Case logs were received for 152/488 (31.1%) residents from 36/115 (31.3%) ophthalmology residency programs. The most common procedures logged by residents as primary surgeons were pterygium removal (4.3 ± 4.2) and keratorefractive surgeries (3.6 ± 6.2). Residents logged an average of 2.4 keratoplasties as primary surgeon, performing an average of 1.4 penetrating keratoplasties (PKs) and 0.8 endothelial keratoplasties (EKs). As assistants, the most common procedures logged were keratorefractive surgeries (6.1 ± 4.9), EKs (3.8 ± 3.3), and PKs (3.5 ± 2.3). Medium or large residency class size was associated with higher cornea procedural volumes (odds ratio: 8.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-75.6; p  < 0.05). Conclusion  The most common cornea surgeries performed by residents include keratoplasty, keratorefractive, and pterygium procedures. Larger program size was associated with greater relative cornea surgery volume. More specific guidelines for logging of procedures could provide a more accurate assessment of resident exposure to critical techniques such as suturing as well as reflect trends in current practice such as the overall increase in EKs.

Purpose  This article evaluates the relevance of social media to ophthalmology residency applicants in the setting of virtual interviews, the types of information sought by applicants, and the impact of rebranding of an institutional and departmental social media account. Design  Cross-sectional survey. Participants  Ophthalmology residency applicants from the 2020 to 2021 cycle. Methods  A voluntary survey was emailed to 481 applicants to the University of Louisville Department of Ophthalmology residency during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle to gauge the impact of social media on their perspectives of residency programs, especially with regards to a new departmental social media account. Main Outcome Measures  Applicants' use of social media platforms and specific components of departmental social media accounts found most useful. Results  The 13-question survey was completed by 84/481 applicants (17.5% response rate). Social media was used by 93% of respondents. Of those respondents reporting social media use, the most common platforms utilized included Instagram (85%), Facebook (83%), Twitter (41%), and LinkedIn (29%). Sixty-nine percent of respondents specifically used Instagram to learn more about residency programs. With regards to the rebranded Instagram account at the University of Louisville, 58% of respondents reported being influenced, with all asserting that the account positively encouraged them to apply to the program. The most informative elements of the account related to current resident profiles, resident life, and living in Louisville. Conclusion  A majority of responding ophthalmology residency applicants utilized social media to search for program information. A newly developed social media profile at a single institution positively influenced applicant impressions of the program, with the most importance assigned to information provided about current residents and typical resident life. These findings suggest key areas where programs should continue to dedicate online resources with targeted information to better recruit applicants.

Introduction  Positive and negative associations between prior publications and future research productivity is described in other fields, but no such analysis exists for ophthalmology. We conducted a study to determine characteristics of residents exhibiting research productivity during residency. Methods  Using San Francisco Match and Program Web sites, a roster of ophthalmology residents in 2019 to 2020 was compiled, and publication data was collected via PubMed and Google Scholar on a random sample of 100 third-year residents. Results  The median number of publications generated by ophthalmology residents before residency is 2 (range 0-13). Thirty-seven, 23, and 40 residents had zero, one, and two or more papers published during residency, respectively, with a median of 1 (range 0-14). On univariate analysis, compared with residents who published zero or one paper, those who published ≥ 2 were more likely to have more preresidency publications (odds ratio [OR] 1.30; p  = 0.005), attend a top-25 ranked residency program by multiple metrics including Doximity reputation (OR 4.92; p  < 0.001), and have attended a top-25 ranked medical school program by U.S. News and World Report (OR 3.24; p  = 0.03). However, on adjusted analyses, the only factor that remained significant for predicting publications in residency was whether the residency program attended was top 25 ranked (OR 3.54; p  = 0.009). Discussion/Conclusion  With the advent of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 pass/fail system, greater emphasis will be placed on other metrics, including research. This is the first benchmark analysis examining factors predictive of publication productivity in ophthalmology residents. Our study suggests that the residency program attended, not the medical school attended or prior publication history, plays an influential role in the number of publications produced during residency, highlighting the importance of factors to support research on the institutional level, such as mentorship and funding, rather than historical factors in research productivity by the resident.

Objective: This article describes a formal ophthalmology residency mentorship program, identifies its strengths and weaknesses over 5 years of implementation, and proposes strategies to improve qualitative outcomes of the mentorship program.

Design: Cross-sectional anonymous online survey.

Subjects: All current and former mentees and mentors at the Casey Eye Institute (CEI) residency program from 2016 to 2021.

Methods: All eligible participants were contacted via email to complete a survey to describe and analyze their experiences with the CEI's formal residency mentorship program.

Results: Of the 65 surveyed participants, 82% preferred in-person meetings and met up from 2 to 3 times (44%) to 4 to 6 times (38.5%) annually at 15 minutes to 1 hour (48%) or 1 to 2 hours (42%) duration. Sixty-two percent of meetings were initiated by mentors, 8% by mentees, and 32% shared responsibilities equally. Participants also identified the three most important qualities for successful mentor-mentee relationship as personality (33.6%), communication styles (29.2%), and extracurricular interests/hobbies (16.8%). Mentees valued career advising, networking, and wellness support over academic and research mentorship. Subjective outcomes showed 25% of the mentee and 43% of the mentors agreed the mentorship program was a valuable experience. Comparably, 14% of the mentees and 38% of the mentors prioritized the relationship. There was a strong correlation between participants who prioritized the relationship and acknowledged it as a valuable experience (p < 0.01). Eighteen percent of the mentees and 43% of the mentors found the relationship effective and met their expectations. Twenty-one percent of the mentees and 38% of the mentors believed they had the tools and skills necessary to be effective in their respective roles.

Conclusion: Our survey identified that weaknesses of the mentorship program include ineffective communications, inadequate preparation in their respective roles, and lack of priority focus on the relationship. We propose strategies to strengthen our program through creating workshops to clarify roles and responsibilities, emphasizing accountability with a contract statement, and implementing a new matching algorithm to customize participants' experience. Additional studies from other residencies with formal mentorship programs are warranted to identify, strategize, and foster high-quality mentorship.