Abstract
Background:
Teleophthalmology programs are expanding, but have not been adapted into many emergency departments (EDs) in the United States.
Introduction:
Determining the potential demand for teleophthalmology services in the United States. EDs could enable development of new strategies to improve access to eye care in resource-limited regions.
Methods:
Telephone surveys were administered to ED physicians and nurses in Florida. Perceptions of ophthalmologist availability, equipment availability, and perceived utility of teleophthalmology services were measured.
Results:
Responses were from 104 of 207 facilities (50.2%); 88/181 (48.6%) designated as nonrural hospitals (NRHs) and 16/26 (61.5%) as rural hospitals (RHs). NRHs reported a median of 1 ophthalmologist available on call compared with a median of 0 at RHs (p < 0.001). NRHs were more likely to have a slit lamp (98.9% NRH, 50.0% RH; p < 0.001) and tonometer (100% NRH, 75.0% RH; p < 0.001). On a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5, most (68/93; 73.1%) perceived the value of teleophthalmology for remote consults as a 4 or 5. The most common perceived benefit of teleophthalmology use was to provide second/expert opinion (26.5% of responses). The most commonly cited perceived disadvantage was the physical unavailability of an ophthalmologist for examination and follow-up care (35.5% of responses).
Discussion:
RHs have less access to ophthalmologists and ophthalmic equipment when managing eye-related complaints in the ED. At both RHs and NRHs, providers face limitations in managing eye complaints and perceived teleophthalmology as a potentially valuable tool for remote expert consultation.
Conclusions:
Results suggest teleophthalmology services may be used to improve access to expert ophthalmic care, particularly in rural communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.