Search

Background: Social media (SoMe) is an integral part of life in the 21st century. Its potential for rapid dissemination and amplification of information offers opportunities for neuroophthalmologists to have an outsized voice to share expertlevel knowledge with the public, other medical professionals, policymakers, and trainees. However, there are also potential pitfalls, because SoMe may spread incorrect or misleading information. Understanding and using SoMe enables neuro-ophthalmologists to influence and educate that would otherwise be limited by workforce shortages. Evidence Acquisition: A PubMed search for the terms “social media” AND “neuro-ophthalmology,” “social media” AND “ophthalmology,” and “social media” AND “neurology” was performed. Results: Seventy-two neurology articles, 70 ophthalmology articles, and 3 neuro-ophthalmology articles were analyzed. A large proportion of the articles were published in the last 3 years (2020, 2021, 2022). Most articles were analyses of SoMe content; other domains included engagement analysis such as Altmetric analysis, utilization survey, advisory opinion/commentary, literature review, and other. SoMe has been used in medicine to share and recruit for scientific research, medical education, advocacy, mentorship and medical professional networking, and branding, marketing, practice building, and influencing. The American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society have developed guidelines on the use of SoMe. Conclusions: Neuro-ophthalmologists may benefit greatly from harnessing SoMe for the purposes of academics, advocacy, networking, and marketing. Regularly creating appropriate professional SoMe content can enable the neuro-ophthalmologist to make a global impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Background: Telehealth was rapidly adopted early in the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to provide medical care while reducing risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission. Since then, telehealth utilization has evolved differentially according to subspecialty. This study assessed changes in neuro-ophthalmology during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Telehealth utilization and opinions pre-COVID-19, early pandemic (spring 2020), and 1 year later (spring 2021) were surveyed among practicing neuro-ophthalmologists in and outside the United States using an online platform. Demographics, self-reported utilization, perceived benefits, barriers, and examination suitability were collected over a 2-week period in May 2021. Results: A total of 135 practicing neuro-ophthalmologists (81.5% United States, 47.4% females, median age 45–54 years) completed the survey. The proportion of participants using video visits remained elevated during COVID + 1 year (50.8%) compared with pre-COVID (6%, P < 0.0005, McNemar), although decreased compared with early COVID (67%, P < 0.0005). Video visits were the most commonly used methodology. The proportion of participants using remote testing (42.2% vs 46.2%), virtual second opinions (14.5% vs 11.9%, P = 0.45), and eConsults (13.5% vs 16.2%, P = 0.38) remained similar between early and COVID + 1 year (P = 0.25). The majority selected increased access to care, better continuity of care, and enhanced patient appointment efficiency as benefits, whereas reimbursement, liability, disruption of in-person clinic flow, limitations of video examinations, and patient technology use were barriers. Many participants deemed many neuro-ophthalmic examination elements unsuitable when collected during a live video session, although participants believed some examination components could be evaluated adequately through a review of ancillary testing or outside records. Conclusions: One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, neuro-ophthalmologists maintained telemedicine utilization at rates higher than prepandemic levels. Tele–neuro-ophthalmology remains a valuable tool in augmenting patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interprofessional electronic consultation (eConsult) is a telemedicine modality in which consulting providers review outside records and provide recommendations without in-person consultation. The purpose of this study was to describe the utilization of eConsults in the management of neuro-ophthalmic conditions. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all patients who received an eConsult for a neuro-ophthalmic condition at a single quaternary referral center from 2018 to 2020. Main outcome measures included proportion of eConsults in which sufficient data were provided to the neuro-ophthalmologist to generate a definitive management decision, proportion of patients for whom an in-person neuro-ophthalmology evaluation was recommended, and the eConsult's impact on patient care. Results: Eighty eConsults were conducted on 78 patients during the 3-year study period. Forty-eight (60.0%) subjects were female, mean age was 54 years, and 65 (81.3%) were White. The median time from eConsult request to completion was 4 days (range: 0–34 days). The most frequent eConsult questions were vision/visual field disturbances in 28 (35.0%) cases, optic neuropathies in 22 (27.5%), and optic disc edema in 17 (21.3%). At the time of eConsult, sufficient prior information was provided in 35 (43.8%) cases for the neuro-ophthalmologist to provide a definitive management decision. In 45 (56.3%) eConsults, further diagnostic testing was recommended. In-person neuro-ophthalmology consultation was recommended in 24 (30.0%) cases. Sixty-one (76.3%) eConsults provided diagnostic and/or treatment direction, and 12 (15.0%) provided reassurance. Conclusion: eConsults increase access to timely neuro-ophthalmic care and provide diagnostic and treatment direction to non–neuro-ophthalmology providers when sufficient information is provided at the time of eConsult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of remote interpretation of data has risen in neuro-ophthalmology to increase efficiency and maintain social distancing due to the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to characterize the use and efficiency of remote interpretation of visual fields (VFs) in an academic center and to determine how often the VF interpretation was consistent with the patient's clinical history and imaging at the time of the consult. Methods: This is a retrospective study at a single academic center that enrolled all patients receiving a remote interpretation of VF from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Data were collected regarding the referring department, indication for the VF, interpretation of the VF and comparison with any prior VFs, any associated interventions with the VF, and available follow-up VFs. The main outcome measures included 1) characterizing the use of remote VF interpretations and 2) how many remote VF interpretation results were consistent with the referring diagnosis based on the patient's clinical history and imaging. Results: One hundred eighty patients received remote interpretation of VFs. The most frequent referring departments were endocrinology (79; 44%), neurology (51; 28%), and neurosurgery (43; 24%). The VF indications included parasellar lesion (107; 59%), seizure disorder (26; 14%), meningioma (19; 11%), vascular lesion (11; 6%), and others (17; 9%). There were 78 patients (43%) that had an intervention before the VF, whereas 49 (27%) were preoperative VFs. Eighty-seven (48%) of the VFs were interpreted as abnormal. Of all the 180 remote interpretation of VFs, 156 (87%) had VF interpretations that were consistent with the clinical question posed by the referring provider based on clinical history and imaging. Among the other 24 remote VF interpretations (13% of total remote VF interpretations), there was no clear interpretation because of either additional unexpected VF defects (n = 5, 21%), VF defect mismatch (n = 6, 25%), or unreliable VFs (n = 13, 54%). The median wait time for patients receiving remote VF interpretations was 1 day. Conclusions: Remote interpretation of VFs was most often requested by endocrinology, neurology, and neurosurgery and could be performed very quickly. The most common indications were parasellar lesions, and just less than half of patients receiving remote VF interpretations had a prior intervention. A majority of remote VF interpretations were able to answer the clinical question, given the patient's clinical history and imaging. Remote interpretation of VFs may thus offer referring departments a more efficient method of obtaining VF interpretations than in-office neuro-ophthalmology examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) has significantly changed medical practice in the United States, including an increase in the utilization of tele-medicine. Here, we characterize change in neuro-ophthalmic care delivery during the early COVID-19 PHE, including a comparison of care delivered via telemedicine and in office. Methods: Neuro-ophthalmology outpatient encounters from 3 practices in the United States (4 providers) were studied during the early COVID-19 PHE (March 15, 2020-June 15, 2020) and during the same dates 1 year prior. For unique patient visits, patient demographics, visit types, visit format, and diagnosis were compared between years and between synchronous telehealth and in-office formats for 2020. Results: There were 1,276 encounters for 1,167 patients. There were 30% fewer unique patient visits in 2020 vs 2019 (477 vs 670) and 55% fewer in-office visits (299 vs 670). Compared with 2019, encounters in 2020 were more likely to be established, to occur via telemedicine and to relate to an efferent diagnosis. In 2020, synchronous tele-health visits were more likely to be established compared with in-office encounters. Conclusions: In the practices studied, a lower volume of neuro-ophthalmic care was delivered during the early COVID-19 public health emergency than in the same period in 2019. The type of care shifted toward established patients with efferent diagnoses and the modality of care shifted toward telemedicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth modalities have come to prominence as a strategy for providing patient care when in-person care provision opportunities are limited. The degree of adoption by neuro-ophthalmologists has not been quantified. Methods: Telehealth utilization pre–COVID-19 and peri–COVID-19 was surveyed among practicing neuro-ophthalmologists in and outside the United States using an online platform. Demographics, perceived benefits, barriers, and utility for different neuro-ophthalmic conditions were collected. Data collection occurred over a 2-week period in May 2020. Results: Two hundred eight practicing neuro-ophthalmologists (81.3% United States, 50.2% females, age range <35 to >65, mode 35–44 years) participated in the survey. Utilization of all telehealth modalities increased from pre-COVID to peri-COVID (video visit 3.9%–68.3%, P < 0.0005, remote interpretation of testing 26.7%–32.2%, P = 0.09, online second opinion 7.9%–15.3%, P = 0.001, and interprofessional e-consult 4.4%–18.7%, P < 0.0005, McNemar). The majority selected access, continuity, and patient efficiency of care as benefits and data quality as a barrier. Telehealth was felt to be most helpful for conditions relying on history, external examination, and previously collected ancillary testing and not helpful for conditions requiring funduscopic examination. Conclusions: Telehealth modality usage by neuro-ophthalmologists increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identified benefits have relevance both during and beyond COVID-19. Further work is needed to address barriers in their current and future states to maintain these modalities as viable care delivery options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medicine, their effectiveness compared with human experts remains unclear. This study evaluates the quality and empathy of Expert + AI, human experts, and LLM responses in neuro-ophthalmology., Methods: This randomized, masked, multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted from June to July 2023. We randomly assigned 21 neuro-ophthalmology questions to 13 experts. Each expert provided an answer and then edited a ChatGPT-4-generated response, timing both tasks. In addition, 5 LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude 2, Bing, Bard) generated responses. Anonymized and randomized responses from Expert + AI, human experts, and LLMs were evaluated by the remaining 12 experts. The main outcome was the mean score for quality and empathy, rated on a 1-5 scale., Results: Significant differences existed between response types for both quality and empathy (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001). For quality, Expert + AI (4.16 ± 0.81) performed the best, followed by GPT-4 (4.04 ± 0.92), GPT-3.5 (3.99 ± 0.87), Claude (3.6 ± 1.09), Expert (3.56 ± 1.01), Bard (3.5 ± 1.15), and Bing (3.04 ± 1.12). For empathy, Expert + AI (3.63 ± 0.87) had the highest score, followed by GPT-4 (3.6 ± 0.88), Bard (3.54 ± 0.89), GPT-3.5 (3.5 ± 0.83), Bing (3.27 ± 1.03), Expert (3.26 ± 1.08), and Claude (3.11 ± 0.78). For quality (P < 0.0001) and empathy (P = 0.002), Expert + AI performed better than Expert. Time taken for expert-created and expert-edited LLM responses was similar (P = 0.75)., Conclusions: Expert-edited LLM responses had the highest expert-determined ratings of quality and empathy warranting further exploration of their potential benefits in clinical settings., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.)