Literature DB >> 24568152

Improved access and cycle time with an "in-house" patient-centered teleglaucoma program versus traditional in-person assessment.

Sourabh Arora1, Chris J Rudnisky, Karim F Damji.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare access time and cycle time between an "in-house" teleglaucoma program and in-person glaucoma consultation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective comparative study of 71 patients seen through the teleglaucoma program (eligible patients were glaucoma suspects or early-stage open-angle glaucoma) and 63 patients seen via a traditional in-person exam with a physician present. Access time was calculated as the time from the patient being referred to the date of a booked visit for either a teleglaucoma or in-person exam. Cycle time was defined as the time from registration until departure during the visit to the hospital; it was calculated for the subset of patients from each study group who completed activity logs on the day of their visit.
RESULTS: The mean access time was significantly shorter for patients seen through teleglaucoma compared with in-person exam: 45±22 days (range, 13-121 days) (n=68) versus 88±47 days (range, 27-214 days) (n=63), respectively (p<0.0001). The cycle time was also reduced for patients seen through teleglaucoma, compared with in-person assessment: 78±20 min (range, 40-130 min) (n=39) versus 115±44 min (range, 51-216 min) (n=39), respectively (p<0.001). The mean percentage time spent in the waiting room was also significantly reduced for patients seen through teleglaucoma versus in-person assessments: 19±13% versus 41±24% (n=39), respectively (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Teleglaucoma improves access to care and is a more efficient way of managing glaucoma suspects and patients with early-stage glaucoma compared with in-person assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24568152     DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0241

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Telemed J E Health        ISSN: 1530-5627            Impact factor:   3.536


  8 in total

1.  Nonmedical Out-of-Pocket Patient and Companion Expenditures Associated With Glaucoma Care.

Authors:  Emily M Schehlein; Lily T Im; Alan L Robin; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Osamah J Saeedi
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  The Current State of Teleophthalmology in the United States.

Authors:  Siddarth Rathi; Edmund Tsui; Nitish Mehta; Sarwar Zahid; Joel S Schuman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  THE IMPACT OF VIDEO VISITS ON MEASURES OF CLINICAL EFFICIENCY AND REIMBURSEMENT.

Authors:  Juan J Andino; Peris R Castaneda; Parth K Shah; Chad Ellimoottil
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2020-01-20

4.  The effectiveness of teleglaucoma versus in-patient examination for glaucoma screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sera-Melisa Thomas; Maya M Jeyaraman; Maya Jeyaraman; William G Hodge; Cindy Hutnik; John Costella; Monali S Malvankar-Mehta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  A Review on the use of Telemedicine in Glaucoma and Possible Roles in COVID-19 Outbreak.

Authors:  Pun Yuet Lam; Chow Shing Chuen; Jimmy Shiu Ming Lai; Bonnie Nga Kwan Choy
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.048

6.  COVID-19 and the resurgence of telehealth in otolaryngology.

Authors:  Christina H Fang; Richard V Smith
Journal:  Oper Tech Otolayngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-04-28

7.  The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Teleglaucoma Screening Device.

Authors:  Sera Thomas; William Hodge; Monali Malvankar-Mehta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  The Future Is Now: Incorporating Telemedicine into Glaucoma Care.

Authors:  Monica K Ertel; Malik Y Kahook; Cara E Capitena Young
Journal:  Curr Ophthalmol Rep       Date:  2021-07-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.