Association of Contrast Sensitivity With Eye Disease and Vision-Related Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: To investigate contrast sensitivity (CS) as a screening tool to detect eye disease and assess its association with both eye disease and vision-related quality of life. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting and population: Adults receiving care from a free clinic and a Federally Qualified Health Center in Michigan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening positive for eye disease and Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ) score. OBSERVATION: Participants received a vision exam reviewed via telemedicine for disease, completed a demographic survey, and the 9-item VFQ. The ability of CS to predict eye disease was explored and area under the curve (AUC) is reported. Logistic and linear regression were used to investigate the continuous effect of CS on the probability of screening positive for eye disease and VFQ score, respectively, adjusting for age and visual acuity. RESULTS: 1159 included participants were, on average, 54.9 ± 14.5 years old, 62% identified as female, 34% as White, 54% as Black, 10% as Hispanic/Latino, and reported mean VFQ score of 79.7 ± 15.3. CS ranged from 0.00 to 1.95 log units (mean = 1.54 ± 0.24), 21% of eyes had glaucoma, 19% cataract, 6% DR, and 2% AMD. AUCs were 0.53 to 0.73. A 0.3 log unit decrease in better eye CS was associated with increased odds of glaucoma (odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.67), cataract (OR = 1.35, CI = 1.05-1.72), DR (OR = 2.05, CI = 1.51-2.77), and AMD (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.10-3.91). A 0.3 log unit increase in better eye CS was associated with a 5.9 unit increase in VFQ. CONCLUSION: While CS alone is not sufficient to identify people with eye disease, it is an important measure of visual function that can add value to comprehensive eye screening.

Reducing Injection-Related Safety Events in Retina Clinics.

Purpose: At the Kellogg Eye Center, we identified a series of injection-related patient safety events that led to a systematic review and redesign of our intravitreal injection protocol. The objective was to reduce injection-related patient safety events to zero. Methods: A retroactive review, using the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis model as a guide, was performed on our process for delivering intravitreal injections to identify potential failure modes and their impact. Results: The total number of injection-related safety events was 1 in 2017 and 16 in 2018 at baseline. Potential vulnerabilities identified included errors in communication, patient identification, clinical documentation, and medication orders. The injection protocol was redesigned. After implementation, there were zero injection-related safety events in all Kellogg Eye Center Retina clinics for the subsequent 18-month follow-up period. Conclusion: It is possible to redesign and implement an intravitreal injection protocol to reduce the rate of safety events in a large academic eye center.