2021 U.S. Virgin Islands Zika health brigade: Providing recommended pediatric health screenings for children born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Health (DOH) conducted a second Zika health brigade (ZHB) in 2021 to provide recommended Zika-related pediatric health screenings, including vision, hearing, neurologic, and developmental screenings, for children in the USVI. This was replicated after the success of the first ZHB in 2018, which provided recommended Zika-related pediatric health screenings to 88 infants and children exposed to Zika virus (ZIKV) during pregnancy. METHODS: Ten specialty pediatric care providers were recruited and traveled to the USVI to conduct the screenings. USVI DOH scheduled appointments for children included in CDC's U.S. Zika Pregnancy and Infant Registry (USZPIR). During the ZHB, participants were examined by pediatric ophthalmologists, pediatric audiologists, and pediatric neurologists. We report the percentage of participants who were referred for additional follow-up care or given follow-up recommendations in the 2021 ZHB and compare these referrals and recommendations to those given in the 2018 ZHB. RESULTS: Thirty-three children born to mothers with laboratory evidence of ZIKV infection during pregnancy completed screenings at the 2021 ZHB, of which 15 (45%) children were referred for additional follow-up care. Ophthalmological screenings resulted in the highest number of new referrals for a specialty provider among ZHB participants, with 6 (18%) children receiving referrals for that specialty. Speech therapy was the most common therapy referral, with 10 (30%) children referred, of which 9 (90%) were among those who attended the 2018 ZHB. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-three children in a jurisdiction with reduced access to healthcare specialists received recommended Zika-related pediatric health screenings at the ZHB. New and continuing medical and developmental concerns were identified and appropriate referrals for follow-up care and services were provided. The ZHB model was successful in creating connections to health services not previously received by the participants.

Electronic health record systems in ophthalmology: impact on clinical documentation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative and qualitative differences in documentation of the ophthalmic examination between paper and electronic health record (EHR) systems. DESIGN: Comparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty consecutive pairs of matched paper and EHR notes, documented by 3 attending ophthalmologist providers. METHODS: An academic ophthalmology department implemented an EHR system in 2006. Database queries were performed to identify cases in which the same problems were documented by the same provider on different dates, using paper versus EHR methods. This was done for 50 consecutive pairs of examinations in 3 different diseases: age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, and pigmented choroidal lesions (PCLs). Quantitative measures were used to compare completeness of documenting the complete ophthalmologic examination, as well as disease-specific critical findings using paper versus an EHR system. Qualitative differences in paper versus EHR documentation were illustrated by selecting representative paired examples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Documentation score, defined as the number of examination elements recorded for the slit-lamp examination, fundus examination, and complete ophthalmologic examination and for critical clinical findings for each disease. (2) Paired comparison of qualitative differences in paper versus EHR documentation. RESULTS: For all 3 diseases (AMD, glaucoma, PCL), the number of complete examination findings recorded was significantly lower with paper than the EHR system (P ≤ 0.004). Among the 3 individual examination sections (general, slit lamp, fundus) for the 3 diseases, 5 of the 9 possible combinations had significantly lower mean documentation scores with paper than EHR notes. For 2 of the 3 diseases, the number of critical clinical findings recorded was significantly lower using paper versus EHR notes (P ≤ 0.022). All (150/150) paper notes relied on graphical representations using annotated hand-drawn sketches, whereas no (0/150) EHR notes contained drawings. Instead, the EHR systems documented clinical findings using textual descriptions and interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: There were quantitative and qualitative differences in the nature of paper versus EHR documentation of ophthalmic findings in this study. The EHR notes included more complete documentation of examination elements using structured textual descriptions and interpretations, whereas paper notes used graphical representations of findings. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.