To evaluate the effectiveness of a patient portal telehealth outreach program to return patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) lost to follow-up (LTFU) for eye care.
Methods:
Patients with DR receiving intravitreal injection (IVI) therapy who were >90 days beyond recommended return were deemed LTFU. Outreach messages were sent via a patient portal, when available, or through the U.S. mail. Patients received information on how to schedule a retinal examination and a symptom-screening questionnaire. The adherence rate to scheduled appointments was assessed 90 days postintervention. Labor costs were estimated based on communication time.
Results:
Among 359 patients with DR receiving IVIs, 22% were LTFU, overdue by a median of 362 days. Receiving fewer IVIs was the factor most strongly associated with becoming LTFU (8.9 ± 9.1 injections vs. 22 ± 20 injections, p < 0.001). The outreach program engaged 39 patients via the patient portal and 28 patients via the U.S. mail. A similar number of patients in each cohort was scheduled (13% vs. 14%, p = 0.862) and completed appointments (10% vs. 14%, p = 0.616). Whereas patient-portal messages took an average of 64 s to send at a labor cost of $0.35/message, each letter sent by mail took approximately 5 min to prepare at a total cost of $2.19.
Conclusions:
A patient portal-based telehealth outreach program is effective at returning patients with DR to eye care and can be implemented at a lower cost, compared with conventional mailed recall letters. Efforts are needed to increase digital health literacy and access to improve the efficiency of health care delivery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SolomonSD, ChewE, DuhEJ, et al.Diabetic retinopathy: A position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40(3):412–418; doi: 10.2337/dc16-2641
2.
FlaxelCJ, AdelmanRA, BaileyST, et al.Diabetic retinopathy preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology, 2020; 127(1):P66–P145; doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.09.025
3.
WellsJA, GlassmanAR, AyalaAR, et al.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. N Engl J Med, 2015; 372(13):1193–1203; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414264
4.
MaturiRK, GlassmanAR, JosicK, et al.DRCR Retina Network. Four-year visual outcomes in the Protocol W randomized trial of intravitreous aflibercept for prevention of vision-threatening complications of diabetic retinopathy. JAMA, 2023; 329(5):376–385; doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.25029
5.
WeissM, SimDA, HeroldT, et al.Compliance and adherence of patients with diabetic macular edema to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in daily practice. Retina, 2018; 38(12):2293–2300; doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001892
6.
ObeidA, GaoX, AliFS, et al.Loss to follow-up in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy after panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Ophthalmology, 2018; 125(9):1386–1392; doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.034
7.
ObeidA, SuD, PatelSN, et al.Outcomes of eyes lost to follow-up with proliferative diabetic retinopathy that received panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Ophthalmology, 2019; 126(3):407–413; doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.07.027
8.
MunzarR, AnayaJA, LasalleC, et al.Effectiveness and financial viability of telehealth physician extenders for re-engagement of patients with diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health, 2023; 29(8):1195–1202; doi: 10.1089/tmj.2022.0334
9.
KoshyE, CarJ, MajeedA. Effectiveness of mobile-phone short message service (SMS) reminders for ophthalmology outpatient appointments: Observational Study. BMC Ophthalmol, 2008; 8:9; doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-8-9
10.
RamseyDJ, LasalleCC, AnjumS, et al.Telehealth encourages patients with diabetes in racial and ethnic minority groups to return for in-person ophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Ophthalmol, 2022; 16:2157–2166; doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S368972
11.
PizziLT, TranJ, ShafaA, et al.Effectiveness and cost of a personalized reminder intervention to improve adherence to glaucoma care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 2016; 14(2):229–240; doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0231-8
12.
RobbinsCC, AnjumS, AlwreikatAM, et al.An initiative to improve follow-up of patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmol Sci, 2021; 1(4):100059; doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100059
HutherA, RohS, RamseyDJ. Telehealth improves follow-up and monitoring of age-related macular degeneration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Ophthalmol, 2023; 43(12):5031–5043; doi: 10.1007/s10792-023-02906-9
15.
CariniE, VillaniL, PezzulloAM, et al.The impact of digital patient portals on health outcomes, system efficiency, and patient attitudes: Updated systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(9):e26189; doi: 10.2196/26189
16.
SabharwalS, KuoKH, RohS, et al.An initiative to improve follow‐up of patients with diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2022; 42(5):965–972; doi: 10.1111/opo.12998
17.
KuoKH, AnjumS, NguyenB, et al.Utilization of remote diabetic retinal screening in a suburban healthcare system. Clin Ophthalmol, 2021; 15:3865–3875; doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S330913
18.
GreenM, TienT, NessS. Predictors of lost to follow-up in patients being treated for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol, 2020; 216:18–27; doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.023
19.
PetoT, AkereleT, SagkriotisA, et al.Treatment patterns and persistence rates with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular oedema in the UK: A real-world study. Diabet Med, 2022; 39(4):e14746; doi: 10.1111/dme.14746
20.
KuoBL, TabanoD, GarmoV, et al.Long-term treatment patterns for diabetic macular edema: Up to 6-year follow-up in the IRIS® Registry. Ophthalmol Retina, 2024; 8(11):1074–1082; doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2024.05.017
21.
CiullaTA, BrachaP, PollackJ, et al.Real-world outcomes of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in diabetic macular edema in the United States. Ophthalmol Retina, 2018; 2(12):1179–1187; doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2018.06.004
22.
SongW, SinghRP, RachitskayaAV. The effect of delay in care among patients requiring intravitreal injections. Ophthalmol Retina, 2021; 5(10):975–980; doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2020.12.020
23.
LangGE, StahlA, VoegelerJ, et al.Observational outcomes in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients following treatment with ranibizumab, panretinal laser photocoagulation or combination therapy—the non-interventional second year follow-up to the PRIDE study. Acta Ophthalmol, 2022; 100(2):e578–e587; doi: 10.1111/aos.14907
HuM, ZhouZ, ZengF, et al.Effects of frequency of follow-up on quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients on oral hypoglycemics. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2012; 14(9):777–782; doi: 10.1089/dia.2012.0037
26.
GaroonRB, LinWV, YoungAK, et al.Cost savings analysis for a diabetic retinopathy teleretinal screening program using an activity-based costing approach. Ophthalmol Retina, 2018; 2(9):906–913; doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2018.01.020
MunzarR, RohS, RamseyDJ. Factors associated with loss to follow-up in patients with advanced age-related macular degeneration: A telehealth recall initiative. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2024; 44(3):626–633; doi: 10.1111/opo.13298
29.
PizziLT, ZangalliCS, MurchisonAP, et al.Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes and costs of two eyecare adherence interventions in diabetes patients. Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 2015; 13(2):253–263; doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0159-4
30.
AttaS, BrownRB, WasserLM, et al.Effect of a patient portal reminder message after no-show on appointment reattendance in ophthalmology: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol, 2024; 263:93–98; doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.026
31.
AdepojuOE, ChaeM, LiawW, et al.Transition to telemedicine and its impact on missed appointments in community-based clinics. Ann Med, 2022; 54(1):98–107; doi: 10.1080/07853890.2021.2019826
32.
Department of Health and Human Services. Modifications to the HIPAA privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification rules under the health information technology for economic and clinical health act and the genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; other modifications to the HIPAA rules. Fed Regist, 2013; 78:5565–5702.
33.
WrightA, FeblowitzJ, SamalL, et al.The Medicare electronic health record incentive program: Provider performance on core and menu measures. Health Serv Res, 2014; 49(1 Pt 2):325–346; doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12134
34.
StrawleyC, RichwineC. Individuals’ access and use of patient portals and smartphone health apps, 2022. ONC Data Brief, 2023; 69:1–13.
35.
ChungS, PanattoniL, ChiJ, et al.Can secure patient-provide messaging improve diabetes care? Diabetes Care, 2017; 40(10):1342–1348; doi: 10.2337/dc17-0140
36.
GraetzI, HuangJ, MuellyER, et al.Association of mobile patient portal access with diabetes medication adherence and glycemic levels among adults with diabetes. JAMA Netw Open, 2020; 3(2):e1921429; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21429
37.
SleathB, CarpenterDM, BudenzDL, et al.A previsit intervention’s influence on glaucoma topics discussed between Black patients and providers. Ophthalmol Glaucoma, 2024; 7(1):75–81; doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2023.07.002
38.
WangSY, HamidMS, MuschDC, et al.Utilization of ophthalmologist consultation for emergency care at a university hospital. JAMA Ophthalmol, 2018; 136(4):428–431; doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0250
39.
RichwineC. Progress and persistent disparities in patient access to electronic health information. JAMA Health Forum, 2023; 4(11):e233883; doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3883
40.
ChengYJ, KanayaAM, AranetaMRG, et al.Prevalence of diabetes by race and ethnicity in the United States, 2011–2016. JAMA, 2019; 322(24):2389–2398; doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.19365
41.
LucaJW, WangX. Declines in Telemedicine Use Among Adults: United States, 2021 and 2022. National Health Statistics Reports, Number 205. U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. June 20, 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr205.pdf [Last accessed: June20, 2024].
42.
ChangE, BlondonK, LylesCR, et al.Racial/ethnic variation in devices used to access patient portals. Am J Manag Care, 2018; 24(1):e1–e8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
