BackgroundThe COVID-19 crisis forced hospitals in the UK dramatically to reduce outpatient activity. To provide continuity of care and to assist patients reluctant or unable to leave their homes, video consultations were rapidly implemented across routine and emergency ophthalmology services.ObjectiveTo describe the deployment and scaling to a large volume of teleophthalmology using a video consultation platform ‘Attend Anywhere’ in Moorfields Eye Hospital’s accident and emergency (A&E) department (London, UK).MethodPatient satisfaction, waiting time, consultation duration, outcome and management were audited following the launch of the new virtual A&E service.ResultsIn the 12 days following the service launch, 331 patients were seen by video consultation. 78.6% of patients (n=260) were determined not to need hospital A&E review and were managed with advice (n=126), remote prescription (n=57), general practitioner referral (n=27), direct referral to hospital subspecialty services (n=26) or diversion to a local eye unit (n=24). Mean patient satisfaction was 4.9 of 5.0 (n=62). The mean consultation duration was 12 min (range 5–31 min) and the wait time was 6 min (range 0–37 min).ConclusionVideo consultations showed greater than expected usefulness in the remote management of eye disease and supported a substantial reduction in the number of people visiting the hospital.

Background the need for social distancing midst the COVID-19 pandemic has forced ophthalmologists to innovate with telemedicine. The novel process of triaging emergency ophthalmology patients via videoconsultations should reduce hospital attendances. However, the safety profile of such services were unknown. Methods in this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed case notes of 404 adults who used our videoconsultation service from 20/04/2020 to 03/05/2020. We compared these to 451 patient who attended eye casualty in person at the same time who were deemed not to require same day ophthalmic examination. Findings patients seen by videoconsultations tended to be younger (Median = 43 years, Inter-quartile range = 27 vs Median= 49 years, Inter-quartile range = 28)'. More males used the face-to-face triage (55%) while more females used videoconsultation (54%)%. Fewer patients seen by videoconsultations required specialist review compared to face-face triage [ X 2 (1, N = 854) = 128.02, p <0.001)]. 35.5% of the patients initially seen by videoconsultation had unplanned reattendance within 1 month, compared to 15.7% in the group initially seen in person. X 2 (1, N = 234) = 7.31, p = 0.007). The rate of actual harm was no different (at 0% for each method), with perfect inter-grader correlation when graded independently by two senior ophthalmologists. 97% of patients seen on the video platform surveyed were satisfied with their care. Interpretation we demonstrate comparable patient safety of videoconsultations at one-month follow-up to in person review. The service is acceptable to patients and reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission. We propose that videoconsultations are effective and desirable as a tool for triage in ophthalmology. Funding the research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology who fund PT and DS's time to conduct research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

No abstract