Search

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.)

Purpose of the Review: Neuro-ophthalmologists rapidly adopted telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize disruption to patient care. This article reviews recent research on tele-neuro-ophthalmology adoption, current limitations, and potential use beyond the pandemic. The review considers how digital transformation, including machine learning and augmented reality, may be applied to future iterations of tele-neuro-ophthalmology., Recent Findings: Telehealth utilization has been sustained among neuro-ophthalmologists throughout the pandemic. Adoption of tele-neuro-ophthalmology may provide solutions to subspecialty workforce shortage, patient access, physician wellness, and trainee educational needs within the field of neuro-ophthalmology. Digital transformation technologies have the potential to augment tele-neuro-ophthalmology care delivery by providing automated workflow solutions, home-based visual testing and therapies, and trainee education via simulators. Tele-neuro-ophthalmology use has and will continue beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital transformation technologies, when applied to telehealth, will drive and revolutionize the next phase of tele-neuro-ophthalmology adoption and use in the years to come., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2022 by North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.)

Background: The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) has significantly changed medical practice in the United States, including an increase in the utilization of telemedicine. 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 telehealth 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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.)