Commentary: Is it time for teleophthalmology, virtual glaucoma clinics and uberization of eye care?

Surfing the COVID-19 Tsunami with Teleophthalmology: the Advent of New Models of Eye Care

Purpose of Review

In this article, we reviewed the impact resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic on the traditional model of care in ophthalmology.

Recent Findings

Though virtual eye care has been present for more than 20 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has established a precedent to seriously consider its role in the evolving paradigm of vision and eye care. New hybrid models of care have enhanced or replaced traditional synchronous and asynchronous visits. The increased use of smart phoneography and mobile applications enhanced the remote examination of patients. Use of e-learning became a mainstream tool to continue accessing education and training.

Summary

Teleophthalmology has demonstrated its value for screening, examining, diagnosing, monitoring treatment, and increasing access to education. However, much of the progress made following the COVID-19 pandemic is at risk of being lost as society pushes to reestablish normalcy. Further studies during the new norm are required to prove a more permanent role for virtual eye care.

Assessing the Utility and Patient Satisfaction of Virtual Retina Clinics During COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To explore whether the virtual retina clinic (VRC) has been a useful and safe platform for monitoring retinal diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and assessing patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted for patients with stable retinal diseases in Donostia University Hospital's Ophthalmology Service during the pandemic. All patients were assessed in the VRC with optical coherence tomography of the macula and widefield retinography, plus visual field tests in hydroxychloroquine retinopathy screenings. The VRC´s effectiveness was evaluated with repeat blind assessments and patient satisfaction with an adapted SERVQUAL scale.

RESULTS

The most common diseases were diabetic retinopathy (30.3%) and age-related macular degeneration (21.8%). Most patients (74%) were eligible to continue in the VRC, 19.3% were referred to face-to-face (F2F) appointments and 6.6% were discharged. Patients underwent repeat blind assessments in F2F appointments to monitor VRC performance in 23.7% of the cases. The sensitivity to detect disease progression was 100%. The specificity was 80.1%. The VRC took half the time. The patient overall satisfaction rating was 9.8/10.

CONCLUSION

The VRC, as an additional platform, supports F2F appointments. Almost three-quarters of patients could continue being safely seen in the VRC. The virtual approach decreases SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Patient satisfaction is very good.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

The VRC enables us to attend patients safely with decreased SARS-CoV-2 exposure.