Compliance with web content accessibility guidelines in ophthalmology social media posts.

This is a cross-sectional exploratory analysis of publicly available Internet data to examine compliance to web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) on patient education social media posts in ophthalmology. WCAG ensures web content accessibility for those with disabilities (including visual impairment). A total of 100 social media posts were sampled from ten ophthalmology patient education social media pages and ten non-ophthalmology (cardiopulmonary) pages as the comparison group. Three independent graders evaluated the selected posts based on the WCAG 2 checklist by WebAIM, a non-profit affiliated with Utah State University, after its adaptation for social media posts. Validated accessibility standard labels: "0" for not meeting any standards, "1" or "A" for meeting bare minimum accessibility requirements, "2" or "AA" for meeting legal accessibility requirements, or "3" or "AAA" for exceeding accessibility requirements. There was not enough evidence to detect a difference in WCAG scores between ophthalmology and non-ophthalmology posts (p = 0.80). Forty-nine percent of scores for ophthalmology social media posts showed no compliance with any WCAG. The most common reasons that ophthalmology posts failed to meet criteria were due to color and contrast issues (39%). Most ophthalmology social media posts had low WCAG scores, indicating poor compliance to WCAG. Because social media is highly visual, reduced compliance to WCAG may create barriers for low vision individuals to successfully access patient education social media content.

Erdheim-Chester Disease With Eyelid and Orbital Involvement: A Review of Treatment Modalities at One Institution From 2014 to 2022.

PURPOSE: To review all cases of Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) with orbital involvement treated at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami, Florida from 2014 to 2022 and compare presentations, treatment modalities, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients diagnosed with ECD who presented to Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from 2014 to 2022 was performed. Data collected included demographics, pretreatment history and ophthalmic examination, pathology report, treatment, subsequent examination, and relevant laboratory results. Histopathology, treatments, and outcomes were reviewed and compared between patients. RESULTS: Four cases were included. Primary treatments included vemurafenib (n = 2), cobimetinib (n = 1), and prednisone (n = 1). All patients demonstrated improvement of ophthalmic symptoms. Vemurafenib was the only medical treatment that was tolerated well and resulted in significant improvement in proptosis despite some reported dry eye; all other medications were discontinued due to intolerable side effects. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib have been used as novel therapy in the treatment of ECD. Vemurafenib demonstrated its utility in reducing proptosis in ECD patients at one ophthalmic institution. Vemurafenib may be a favorable treatment option for BRAF-positive ECD patients presenting with orbital disease.

Compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines in Ophthalmology Social Media Posts.

This is a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available Internet data to examine compliance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) on patient education social media posts in ophthalmology. WCAG ensures web content accessibility for those with disabilities (including visual impairment). Social media posts were sampled from 10 ophthalmology patient education social media pages and 10 non-ophthalmology (cardiopulmonary) pages as the comparison group. Three independent reviewers graded the selected posts based on the WebAIM© WCAG 2 checklist adapted for social media posts. Validated accessibility standard labels: "0" for not meeting any standards, "1" for meeting bare minimum accessibility requirements, "2" for meeting legal accessibility requirements, or "3" for exceeding accessibility requirements. There were no significant differences between ophthalmology and non-ophthalmology posts in receiving high vs. low WCAG grades. 49% of ratings for ophthalmology social media posts showed no compliance with any WCAG. The most common reasons that ophthalmology posts failed to meet criteria were due to color and contrast issues (38.9%). Most ophthalmology social media posts had low WCAG scores, indicating poor compliance to WCAG. Because social media is highly visual, reduced compliance to WCAG may create barriers for low vision individuals to successfully access patient education social media content.

Fraud Claims Filed Involving Practicing Ophthalmologists from 1985 Through 2020.

Introduction: Like all United States physicians, ophthalmologists may be implicated in lawsuits claiming fraudulent medical practice. In order to educate, raise awareness, and mitigate fraudulent practice, we reviewed a legal database and analyzed fraud claims in ophthalmology lawsuits. Methods: A retrospective legal literature review was performed on jury verdicts and settlements from the online legal database LexisNexis Academic from 1985 through 2020 that were filed by or against an ophthalmologist, involved a fraud claim, and included a final decision or settlement. Cases were evaluated for factors including demographics of plaintiffs and defendants, type of fraud claim, ophthalmologist party status (plaintiff or defendant), decision outcome, and amount awarded (when applicable). Results: Of the 27 cases analyzed, all ophthalmologist defendants involved were male and the most common sub-specialty for an ophthalmologist defendant was refractive surgery. The most common fraud type was a fraud claim involving a malpractice lawsuit (12 of 27), followed by contract fraud and billing fraud. While the ophthalmologists in malpractice-related fraud cases experienced more rulings in favor of the defendant on the fraud claims (8 of 12), ophthalmologists in billing fraud cases experienced fewer rulings in their favor (0 of 5). Discussion: Ophthalmology lawsuits involving fraud claims occurred in various settings, including malpractice lawsuits, contract cases, and Medicare and Medicaid billing. Defendants were all male and most commonly refractive surgeons.