Value of Routine Eye Examinations in Asymptomatic Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine if routine eye examinations in asymptomatic patients result in spectacle prescription change, new critical diagnosis, or new management of existing conditions. We also investigate whether age and time between assessments (assessment interval) impact detection rates. METHODS: The Waterloo Eye Study (WatES) database was created from a retrospective file review of 6397 patients seen at the University of Waterloo Optometry Clinic. Significant changes since the previous assessment (significant change) were defined as a change in spectacle prescription, presence of a new critical diagnosis, or a new management. Significant change, assessment interval, and age were extracted from the database for all asymptomatic patients presenting for a routine eye examination. The frequency of patients with significant change and the median assessment interval were determined for different age groups. RESULTS: Of 2656 asymptomatic patients, 1078 (41%) patients had spectacle prescription changes, 434 (16%) patients had new critical diagnoses, 809 (31%) patients had new managements, and 1535 (58%) patients had at least one of these (significant change). Median assessment intervals were 2.9 and 2.8 years for age groups 40 to <65 years and 20 to <40 years, respectively, approximately 1.5 years for patients 7 to <20, and between 1 and 1.5 years for patients <7 or >64. Controlling for assessment interval and sex, increasing age was associated with having a significant change (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.029-1.037). Similarly, controlling for age and sex, increased assessment interval was associated with having a significant change (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients, comprehensive routine optometric eye examinations detect a significant number of new eye conditions and/or result in management changes. The number detected increases with age and assessment interval.

Surgical specialty procedures in rural surgery practices: implications for rural surgery training.

BACKGROUND: Specialty procedures constitute one eighth of rural surgery practice. Currently, general surgeons intending to practice in rural hospitals may not get adequate training for specialty procedures, which they will be expected to perform. Better definition of these procedures will help guide rural surgery training. METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes for all surgical procedures for 81% of North Dakota and South Dakota rural surgeons were entered into the Dakota Database for Rural Surgery. Specialty procedures were analyzed and compared with the Surgical Council on Resident Education curriculum to determine whether general surgery training is adequate preparation for rural surgery practice. RESULTS: The Dakota Database for Rural Surgery included 46,052 procedures, of which 5,666 (12.3%) were specialty procedures. Highest volume specialty categories included vascular, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, cardiothoracic, urology, and otolaryngology. Common procedures in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery are taught in general surgical residency, while common procedures in obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, and otolaryngology are usually not taught in general surgery training. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal training for rural surgery practice should include experience in specialty procedures in obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, and otolaryngology.

A comprehensive analysis of surgical procedures in rural surgery practices.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the practice patterns of surgeons are derived from indirect information and may not reflect practice patterns in rural surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze all procedures performed by rural surgeons in North Dakota and South Dakota in 2006. METHODS: All surgeons in the Dakotas were identified by state American College of Surgeons databases. Rural urban commuting area codes were used to identify rural surgeons. Current Procedural Terminology codes from clinic, outpatient, and inpatient procedures performed during 2006 were obtained. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 81% of rural surgeons. A total of 46,052 Current Procedural Terminology procedure codes were analyzed. Rural surgeons averaged 1,071 procedures/year, composed of 25.6% general surgery, 39.8% endoscopy, 17.9% minor surgery, and 12.3% surgical specialty procedures. Surgeons in small and large rural communities differed in total procedures per year (1,346 vs 988). Significant differences existed in the types of procedures performed by surgeons in large and small rural communities (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Rural surgeons perform a high volume of procedures, with endoscopic and minor surgical procedures comprising over 55% of their practices. Understanding rural surgeons' caseload will help guide the training of rural surgeons.

Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests implantable central venous access ports (ICVAPs) can be placed by interventional radiologists with fewer complications and lower expenses when compared with surgeons. An analysis of outcomes and expenses of ICVAP placement by service was conducted. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight ICVAPs were placed over 3 years at a 230-bed community teaching hospital. A retrospective review of these procedures was conducted. Data recorded for each procedure included patient demographics, reason for placement, indwelling port days, complications, billed charges, and reimbursement. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six (75%) ICVAPs were placed by interventional radiologists, while surgeons placed the remaining 92 ports (25%). Short-term complications were identified in 7 interventional radiologist-placed ports (2.5%) and 1 surgically placed port (1.1%), P = .42. Billed charges were greater for interventional radiologist-placed ports ($5,301 vs $4,552, P = .0001). In contrast, reimbursement was greater for surgically placed ports: interventional radiologist 31.3% of charges, surgery 42.8%, P = .049. CONCLUSION: Reimbursement and charges demonstrated significant differences between surgeons and interventional radiologists. Prior assertions that ports placed by interventional radiologists are less expensive with fewer complications may no longer be valid.