4.4 Article

Lockdown low vision assessment: an audit of 500 telephone-based modified low vision consultations

期刊

OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 295-300

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12789

关键词

low vision; remote consultation; telemedicine; tele‐ rehabilitation; visual acuity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Telephone low vision assessments were completed in about three-quarters of cases. About one-quarter of consultations resulted in new low vision aids being dispensed, which were generally found useful.
Purpose Non-urgent face-to-face outpatient ophthalmology appointments were suspended in the United Kingdom in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In common with other centres, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London) offered modified telephone consultations to new and follow-up patients in the low vision clinic. Here we assess the success of this telephone service. Methods Data were collected for 500 consecutive telephone low vision appointments. Successful completion of the assessment and clinical outcomes (low vision aids prescribed, onward referral) were recorded. Results Telephone assessments were completed for 364 people (72.8%). The most common reasons for non-completion were either no answer to the telephone call (75 people, 15%), or the patient declining assessment (20 people, 4%). There was no association between age and the likelihood of an assessment being completed. 131 new low vision aids were dispensed, 77 internal referrals were made and 15 people were referred to outside services. More than 80% of the low vision aids prescribed were useful. Conclusions Telephone low vision assessments were completed in about three-quarters of cases. About one-quarter of consultations resulted in new low vision aids being dispensed, which were generally found useful. Telephone low vision assessments can be used successfully in a large low vision clinic, but have many limitations when compared to face-to-face assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据