Purchase this article with an account.
Angela Joy Verkade, Nhon Thanh Le, Cynthia K McClard, Sameer Thacker, Leah M Douglas, Christina Y Weng; Patient Perceptions and Satisfaction with the Teleretinal Screening Experience. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):5240. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Teleretinal (TR) screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) has proven effective in detecting sight-threatening disease. However, there is minimal data evaluating patient perceptions or experiences with this unconventional screening method. Our aim is to evaluate the quality of care provided by TR screening based on self-reported patient satisfaction scores.
Patients screened via the Harris Health System DR TR program between 2013-2017 were surveyed by telephone. The questionnaire inquired about topics such as satisfaction with the experience, education received, discomfort endured, and demographic information. Where relevant, responses were quantified on a 5-point Likert scale.
Complete surveys were collected for 222 patients. The majority of respondents were 51-60 years old (38%), female (70%), Hispanic (59%), and unemployed (55%). 79% had planned to have their eyes examined within the year while 21% did not. 28% had never received a dilated examination before. Prior to their TR screening visit, 92% were aware that diabetes could cause ocular disease. 29% of respondents received dilating drops during their TR screening.Most patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the time waited to schedule screening (85%), convenience of location (92%), time waited during appointment (95%), care taken by staff (98%), and overall impression of screening (95%). Nearly all reported having confidence in the technology used for screening (96%) and 93% of respondents denied experiencing discomfort during the screening process.The majority of dissatisfied or very dissatisfied responses pertained to the quality of education received about DR (13%), explanation of the TR screening process (12%), and instructions provided regarding follow-up (24%). When asked if he/she would prefer traditional screening versus TR screening for their next ophthalmologic examination, 49.7% preferred the former.
Overall, TR screening is well-received by patients at our site. Patient education and the results-sharing process were identified as areas needing improvement. Interestingly, this study found that while there was an overwhelming confidence in the TR technology, nearly half of patients still preferred conventional ocular examinations. Further exploration into patient motivations and perceptions is critical to better accommodate patient needs and improve compliance with DR screening.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only