Practice Patterns and Responsiveness to Simulated Common Ocular Complaints Among US Ophthalmology Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology pr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of ophthalmology (1960) 2020-09, Vol.138 (9), p.981-988
Hauptverfasser: Starr, Matthew R, Israilevich, Rachel, Zhitnitsky, Michael, Cheng, Qianqian E, Soares, Rebecca R, Patel, Luv G, Ammar, Michael J, Khan, M. Ali, Yonekawa, Yoshihiro, Ho, Allen C, Cohen, Michael N, Sridhar, Jayanth, Kuriyan, Ajay E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional study, 40 private practices and 20 university centers were randomly selected from 4 regions across the US. Data were collected on April 29 and 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators placed telephone calls to each ophthalmology practice office. Responses to 3 clinical scenarios—refraction request, cataract evaluation, and symptoms of a posterior vitreous detachment—were compared regionally and between private and university centers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary measure was time to next appointment for each of the 3 scenarios. Secondary measures included use of telemedicine and advertisement of COVID-19 precautions. RESULTS: Of the 40 private practices, 2 (5%) were closed, 24 (60%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 14 (35%) remained open to all patients. Of the 20 university centers, 2 (10%) were closed, 17 (85%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 1 (5%) remained open to all patients. There were no differences for any telemedicine metric. University centers were more likely than private practices to mention preparations to limit the spread of COVID-19 (17 of 20 [85%] vs 14 of 40 [35%]; mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P 
ISSN:2168-6165
2168-6173
DOI:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.3237