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.

IMPORTANCETelemedicine is accelerating the remote detection and monitoring of medical conditions, such as vision-threatening diseases. Meaningful deployment of smartphone apps for home vision monitoring should consider the barriers to patient uptake and engagement and address issues around digital exclusion in vulnerable patient populations.OBJECTIVE To quantify the associations between patient characteristics and clinical measures with vision monitoring app uptake and engagement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cohort and survey study, consecutive adult patients attending Moorfields Eye Hospital receiving intravitreal injections for retinal disease between May 2020 and February 2021 were included.EXPOSURES Patients were offered the Home Vision Monitor (HVM) smartphone app to self-test their vision. A patient survey was conducted to capture their experience. App data, demographic characteristics, survey results, and clinical data from the electronic health record were analyzed via regression and machine learning.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Associations of patient uptake, compliance, and use rate measured in odds ratios (ORs). RESULTSOf 417 included patients, 236 (56.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 72.8 (12.8) years. A total of 258 patients (61.9%) were active users. Uptake was negatively associated with age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.998; P = .02) and positively associated with both visual acuity in the better-seeing eye (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .01) and baseline number of intravitreal injections (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .02). Of 258 active patients, 166 (64.3%) fulfilled the definition of compliance. Compliance was associated with patients diagnosed with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07-3.53; P = .002), White British ethnicity (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.96-3.01; P = .02), and visual acuity in the better-seeing eye at baseline (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .04). Use rate was higher with increasing levels of comfort with use of modern technologies (β = 0.031; 95% CI, 0.007-0.055; P = .02). A total of 119 patients (98.4%) found the app either easy or very easy to use, while 96 (82.1%) experienced increased reassurance from using the app.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This evaluation of home vision monitoring for patients with common vision-threatening disease within a clinical practice setting revealed demographic, clinical, and patient-related factors associated with patient uptake and engagement. These insights inform targeted interventions to address risks of digital exclusion with smartphone-based medical devices.

Up to five percent of primary care consultations are eye-related, yet 96% of General Practitioners (GPs) do not undergo postgraduate ophthalmology training. Most do not feel assured performing eye assessments. Some red eye conditions can become sight threatening, and often exhibit red-flag features. These features include moderate pain, photophobia, reduced visual acuity (VA), eye-trauma, or unilateral marked redness. The aim of this project was to improve primary care assessment and referral of patients presenting with red-flag features based on the NICE ‘Red Eye’ Clinical Knowledge Summary recommendations.Data was collected retrospectively from 139 red eye consultations. A practice meeting highlighted poor awareness of red-flag features, low confidence levels in eye assessments, and time-constraints during appointments. Interventions were based on feedback from staff. These included a primary care teaching session on red-flag features, a VA measurement tutorial, and provision of a red eye toolkit, including VA equipment, to each consultation room.At baseline, each patient had on average 0.9 red-flag features assessed. Only 36.0% (9/25) of patients with red-flag features were appropriately referred to same-day ophthalmology services. Following two improvement cycles, a significant improvement was seen in almost every parameter. On average, each patient had 2.7 red-flag features assessed (vs 0.9, p<0.001). VA was assessed in 55.6% of consultations (vs 7.9%, p<0.001), pain was quantified in 81.5% (vs 20.9%, p=0.005), eye-trauma or foreign-body (51.8% vs 8.6%, p<0.001), extent of redness was documented in 66.7% (vs 14.4%, p<0.001). Only photophobia remained poorly assessed (18.5% vs 14.4%, p=0.75). Following this, 75.0% (6/8) of patients were appropriately referred.This project reflected the literature regarding low confidence and inexperience amongst GPs when faced with ophthalmic conditions. Improvements in education are required to ensure accurate assessments can be undertaken in a time-constrained environment.

IMPORTANCE Patients with benign essential blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm are known to use botulinum toxin injections and alleviating maneuvers to help control their symptoms. The clinical correlates between the use of botulinum toxin injections and the use of alleviating maneuvers are not well established. OBJECTIVE To determine whether the use of alleviating maneuvers for benign essential blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm correlates with disease severity or botulinum toxin treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective cross-sectional observational study (designed in September 2013) of 74 patients with benign essential blepharospasm and 56 patients with hemifacial spasm who were consecutively recruited from adnexal clinics at Moorfields Eye Hospital (January-June 2014) to complete a questionnaire and undergo a clinical review. Data analysis was performed in December 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prevalence and type of alleviating maneuvers used for blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm, dystonia severity, and dose and frequency of botulinum toxin injections. RESULTS Of the 74 patients with blepharospasm, 39 (52.7%) used alleviating maneuvers (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [9.1] years); of the 56 patients with hemifacial spasm, 25 (44.6%) used alleviating maneuvers (mean [SD] age, 66.5 [12.7] years). The most commonly used maneuver was the touching of facial areas (35 of 64 patients [54.7%]); other maneuvers included covering the eyes (6 of 64 patients [9.4%]), singing (5 of 64 patients [7.8%]), and yawning (5 of 64 patients [7.8%]). Patients with blepharospasm who used alleviating maneuvers scored higher on the Jankovic Rating Scale (median score, 5 vs 4; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 1 [95% CI, 0-2]; P = .01) and the Blepharospasm Disability Index severity score (median score, 11 vs 4; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 4 [95% CI, 1-7]; P = .01) than patients with blepharospasm who did not use alleviating maneuvers. Patients with hemifacial spasm who used alleviating maneuvers scored higher on the 7-item Hemifacial Spasm Quality of Life scale (median score, 7 vs 3; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 4 [95% CI, 1-7]; P = .01) and the SMC Severity Grading Scale (median score, 2 vs 2; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-1]; P = .03) than patients with hemifacial spasm who did not use alleviating maneuver. The severity of dystonia correlated with botulinum toxin treatment for patients with blepharospasm (r = 0.23; P = .049) and patients with hemifacial spasm (r = 0.45; P = .001). There was no difference found in botulinum toxin treatment between patients who used alleviating maneuvers and those who did not, in either the blepharospasm group (150 vs 125 units; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 20 units [95% CI, −10 to 70 units]; P = .15) or the hemifacial spasm group (58 vs 60 units; Hodges-Lehmann median difference, 0 units [95% CI, −15 to 20 units]; P = .83). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Half of the patients with periocular facial dystonias used alleviating maneuvers. Their use was associated with m...

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Although infrequent, this complication has poor outcomes. The definitive management is removal of the weight. Information regarding implanted gold, and previous reactions should be elicited pre-operatively. Type IV hypersensitivity should be considered in patients with persistent inflammation that do not respond to antibiotic or steroid therapy.

No abstract