Search

Importance: In order to continue to clarify and maintain their role as eye physicians and surgeons, ophthalmologists may want to understand how they are viewed in the public eye and online., Objective: To determine the representation of ophthalmologists (OMD) and optometrists (ODs) when a Google search for "eye doctor near me" is made from each county in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study used publicly available data on OMDs and ODs and a Google search application programming interface (API) to search the phrase "eye doctor near me" from the geographic coordinates of each county centroid in the US (searched June 30, 2021). The top 10 sites and 3 Google map links, excluding physician ratings sites, were recorded. Data from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to estimate the real number of OMDs and ODs per county., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean proportion of OMDs listed by Google search as compared with the real proportion of OMDs for the US overall and for each state and county., Results: A total of 2955 counties from 52 states and territories were included. The overall mean proportion of OMDs (OMDs with ODs) from the Google search of all counties was 4726.97 of 16 345.93 (28.91%), which was also less than the real proportion of ODs (15 778 of 41 975 [37.58%], a difference of 8.67%; 95% CI, 37.13-38.05%; P < .001). OMDs were underrepresented by Google in 35 of 52 states and territories (67.3%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In most counties in the US, Google search of the phrase "eye doctor near me" may underrepresent ophthalmologists. Ophthalmologists may want to pursue search engine optimization to try to achieve balanced representation online.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients., Objective: To report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 40 private practices and 20 university centers were randomly selected from 4 regions across the US. Data were collected on April 29 and 30, 2020., Interventions: Investigators placed telephone calls to each ophthalmology practice office. Responses to 3 clinical scenarios-refraction request, cataract evaluation, and symptoms of a posterior vitreous detachment-were compared regionally and between private and university centers., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was time to next appointment for each of the 3 scenarios. Secondary measures included use of telemedicine and advertisement of COVID-19 precautions., Results: Of the 40 private practices, 2 (5%) were closed, 24 (60%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 14 (35%) remained open to all patients. Of the 20 university centers, 2 (10%) were closed, 17 (85%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 1 (5%) remained open to all patients. There were no differences for any telemedicine metric. University centers were more likely than private practices to mention preparations to limit the spread of COVID-19 (17 of 20 [85%] vs 14 of 40 [35%]; mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P < .001). Private practices had a faster next available appointment for cataract evaluations than university centers, with a mean (SD) time to visit of 22.1 (27.0) days vs 75.5 (46.1) days (mean difference, 53.4; 95% CI, 23.1-83.7; P < .001). Private practices were also more likely than university centers to be available to see patients with flashes and floaters (30 of 40 [75%] vs 8 of 20 [40%]; mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of investigator telephone calls to ophthalmology practice offices, there were uniform recommendations for the 3 routine ophthalmic complaints. Private practices had shorter times to next available appointment for cataract extraction and were more likely to evaluate posterior vitreous detachment symptoms. As there has not been a study examining these practice patterns before the COVID-19 pandemic, the relevance of these findings on public health is yet to be determined.