Complications of Adenoviral Keratoconjunctivitis in Ophthalmologists and Orthoptists: Epidemiology and Risk Factor, A Retrospective Questionnaire Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the medical history of adenoviral keratoconjunctivitis (AK) and subepithelial infiltrates (SEIs) among French ophthalmologists and orthoptists and the frequency of unreported occupational diseases. We also described short-term and long-term consequences of AK and evaluated associated factors. METHODS: The REDCap questionnaire was diffused online several times over 7 consecutive months, from October 2019 to May 2020, through mailing lists (French Society of Ophthalmology, residents, and hospital departments), social networks, and by word of mouth. RESULTS: Seven hundred ten participants were included with a response rate of 6.2% for ophthalmologists, 3.8% for orthoptists, and 28.3% for ophthalmology residents. The medical history of AK was found in 24.1% (95% confidence interval 21%-27.2%) of respondents and SEI in 43.9% (36.5%-51.3%) of the AK population. In total, 87.1% (82.1%-92.1%) of AK occupational diseases were not declared. In total, 57.7% of respondents took 9.4 ± 6.2 days of sick leave, mostly unofficial, and 95.7% stopped surgeries for 13.0 ± 6.6 days. Among the AK population, 39.8% had current sequelae, with 17.5% having persistent SEIs, 19.9% using current therapy, and 16.4% experiencing continuing discomfort. SEIs were associated with wearing contact lenses (odds ratio 3.31, 95% confidence interval 1.19-9.21) and smoking (4.07, 1.30-12.8). Corticosteroid therapy was associated with a greater number of sequelae (3.84, 1.51-9.75). CONCLUSIONS: AK and SEI affect a large proportion of ophthalmologists and orthoptists, possibly for years, with high morbidity leading to occupational discomfort. Few practitioners asked for either to be recognized as an occupational disease. Associated factors would require a dedicated study.

Socioeconomic status and utilization of amblyopia services at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether socioeconomic status is associated with equal utilization of amblyopia services at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), a pediatric tertiary hospital in Canada. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: The medical records of children aged under 7 years diagnosed with amblyopia at SickKids from 2007 to 2009 were reviewed. METHODS: Socioeconomic status was derived from patients' residential postal codes through linking with income data in the 2006 Canadian census report. Patients were divided into 5 income quintiles to compare with amblyopia service utilization. The main outcome measure was the observed distribution of amblyopia patients by socioeconomic status versus the expected distribution of 20% for each quintile. RESULTS: The analyses included 336 patients. Children with amblyopia at SickKids were more likely to come from the richest neighbourhood (32.5%), whereas children from each of the 3 lowest quintiles (14.6%-15.5%) were less likely to present at SickKids. These results differed significantly from the expected 20% for each quintile (p < 0.0001). All types of amblyopia were significantly under-represented for children from the lower socioeconomic groups. When analyses were stratified by travel distance to the hospital, a significant inequality between the lower and higher income quintiles remained for nonmetropolitan Toronto patients, but not for metropolitan Toronto patients. CONCLUSION: Despite a publicly funded health-care system in Canada, children from lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods in distant areas utilize the amblyopia services in a tertiary pediatric centre less often than those from higher socioeconomic status.

Are rehabilitation services for patients in UK eye clinics adequate? A survey of eye care professionals.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether specific services such as emotional and family support are currently available in the United Kingdom for people with visual impairment. METHODS: A validated online survey was created and distributed to clinical staff in eye clinics (for example, ophthalmologists and optometrists) and rehabilitation staff (for example, social and rehabilitation workers) in the community, who worked with people with visual impairment. A total of 67 clinical and 42 rehabilitation staff completed the entire survey online. RESULTS: Only 67% of the respondents claimed their clinics provide emotional support and 44% of respondent's clinics provided family support. Clinical and rehabilitation staff have differences in opinion over what constitutes an essential service for a visually impaired patient. Rehabilitation staff considered emotional support and referral to social services as essential more often than clinical staff (P<0.05). There is some confusion over the type of personnel who provides each type of service, with some services showing substantial repetition. CONCLUSION: In the clinics sampled, there appears to be an underprovision of emotional support (attentive listening plus constructive suggestions) and family support (emotional support and advice for family members) for visually impaired patients in the United Kingdom. There also seems to be some discrepancy in services that eye care professionals feel are available and previous reports by visually impaired patients of the service they receive. There is a need to develop standardised pathways across the United Kingdom, to solve some of these issues.

The gatekeeper in vision care. An analysis of the co-ordination of professional services in The Netherlands.

Data from a national survey were used to explore the position of ophthalmologists, general practitioners, orthoptists, optometrists and opticians in the domain of vision care services. Options for organising the gatekeeper function were analysed. This was done on the basis of six cases that the five key occupations considered as their overlapping areas. Nearly all respondents reported to be consulted by patients with the given complaints, indicating rather unclear boundaries between the professions. Further, the opinions indicated preference for a medical gatekeeper (ophthalmologist, GP) rather than a non-medical one (optometrist). Lack of agreement on suggested gatekeeper options suggest other options to consider, like regional networks of GPs, ophthalmologists, orthoptists and optometrists who share the responsibility for a specified client population. At present, such innovative arrangements are being introduced. GPs and optometrists could share the responsibility for gate-keeping and for referring patients to more specialised services.