Evan M Chen1, Aneesha Ahluwalia1, Ravi Parikh2, Kristen Nwanyanwu3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Manhattan Retina and Eye Consultants, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Electronic address: k.nwanyanwu@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe follow-up rates for patients referred for outpatient ophthalmic care after emergency department (ED) discharge and identify patient and visit characteristics associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU). DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of 2,206 patients seen in the ED for an eye-related issue who were subsequently scheduled for ophthalmology follow-up between 2013 and 2019 at a single tertiary health system. The main outcome measures were the frequency of and risk factors for LTFU and ED revisits. RESULTS: In total, 1,649 (74.8%) patients completed follow-up within 2 months of an index ED visit. In multivariable analysis, younger age (P < .001), a nonurgent ophthalmic condition or nonophthalmic primary diagnosis (P < .001), scheduled follow-up >5 days after the ED visit (P < .001), additional follow-up appointments (<.001), no prior history of ophthalmology appointments (P = .045), a visual acuity of 20/40 or better (P = .027), and having Medicaid or being uninsured (P < .001) were significantly associated with LTFU. The presence of an interpreter significantly increased the likelihood of follow-up among non-English speaking patients (P < .001). LTFU was significantly associated with an ED revisit within 4 months of an index visit, and the ED revisit rate was significantly higher for patients LTFU vs those who completed follow-up (5.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of patients referred for ophthalmic care after an ED presentation were LTFU. We identified numerous factors associated with LTFU that could be used to develop interventions to enhance follow-up. In addition, patients who were LTFU were more likely to revisit the ED for the same ophthalmic condition.
PURPOSE: To describe follow-up rates for patients referred for outpatient ophthalmic care after emergency department (ED) discharge and identify patient and visit characteristics associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU). DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of 2,206 patients seen in the ED for an eye-related issue who were subsequently scheduled for ophthalmology follow-up between 2013 and 2019 at a single tertiary health system. The main outcome measures were the frequency of and risk factors for LTFU and ED revisits. RESULTS: In total, 1,649 (74.8%) patients completed follow-up within 2 months of an index ED visit. In multivariable analysis, younger age (P < .001), a nonurgent ophthalmic condition or nonophthalmic primary diagnosis (P < .001), scheduled follow-up >5 days after the ED visit (P < .001), additional follow-up appointments (<.001), no prior history of ophthalmology appointments (P = .045), a visual acuity of 20/40 or better (P = .027), and having Medicaid or being uninsured (P < .001) were significantly associated with LTFU. The presence of an interpreter significantly increased the likelihood of follow-up among non-English speaking patients (P < .001). LTFU was significantly associated with an ED revisit within 4 months of an index visit, and the ED revisit rate was significantly higher for patients LTFU vs those who completed follow-up (5.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of patients referred for ophthalmic care after an ED presentation were LTFU. We identified numerous factors associated with LTFU that could be used to develop interventions to enhance follow-up. In addition, patients who were LTFU were more likely to revisit the ED for the same ophthalmic condition.
Authors: Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; Kay Scilley; Christopher A Girkin; Janice M Phillips; Karen Searcey Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Brian C Stagg; Muazzum M Shah; Nidhi Talwar; Dolly A Padovani-Claudio; Maria A Woodward; Joshua D Stein Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sarah McCue Horwitz; Susan H Busch; Kathleen M B Balestracci; Katherine D Ellingson; James Rawlings Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Alex T Pham; Todd D Whitescarver; Bradley Beatson; Boonkit Purt; Yoshihiro Yonekawa; Ankoor S Shah; Marcus H Colyer; Fasika A Woreta; Grant A Justin Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 3.775