Michelle M Abou-Jaoude, Jessica Crawford, Richard J Kryscio, Daniel B Moore
{"title":"Accuracy of Ophthalmology Clinic Follow-Up in the Incarcerated Patient Population.","authors":"Michelle M Abou-Jaoude, Jessica Crawford, Richard J Kryscio, Daniel B Moore","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1758562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b> Incarcerated patients represent a uniquely vulnerable population in the outpatient ophthalmology setting, and the reliability of follow-up in this group is undetermined. <b>Methods</b> This was a retrospective, observational chart review of consecutive incarcerated patients evaluated at the ophthalmology clinic of a single academic medical center between July 2012 and September 2016. For each encounter the following were recorded: patient age, gender, incarcerated status at the time of encounter (a subset of patients had encounters before/after incarceration), interventions performed, follow-up interval requested, urgency of follow-up, and actual time to subsequent follow-up. Primary outcome measures were no-show rate and timeliness, which was defined as follow-up within 1.5× the requested period. <b>Results</b> There were 489 patients included during the study period, representing a total of 2,014 clinical encounters. Of the 489 patients, 189 (38.7%) were seen once. Of the remaining 300 patients with more than one encounter, 184 (61.3%) ultimately did not return and only 24 (8%) were always on time for every encounter. Of 1,747 encounters with specific follow-up requested, 1,072 were considered timely (61.3%). Factors significantly associated with subsequent loss to follow-up include whether a procedure was performed ( <i>p</i> < 0.0001), urgency of follow-up ( <i>p</i> < 0.0001), incarcerated status ( <i>p</i> = 0.0408), and whether follow-up was requested ( <i>p</i> < 0.0001). <b>Conclusion</b> Almost two-thirds of incarcerated patients in our population requiring repeat examination were lost to follow-up, particularly those who underwent an intervention or required more urgent follow-up. Patients entering and exiting the penal system were less likely to follow-up while incarcerated. Further work is needed to understand how these gaps compare to those in the general population and to identify means of improving these outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e258-e262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a6/7a/10-1055-s-0042-1758562.PMC9927990.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose Incarcerated patients represent a uniquely vulnerable population in the outpatient ophthalmology setting, and the reliability of follow-up in this group is undetermined. Methods This was a retrospective, observational chart review of consecutive incarcerated patients evaluated at the ophthalmology clinic of a single academic medical center between July 2012 and September 2016. For each encounter the following were recorded: patient age, gender, incarcerated status at the time of encounter (a subset of patients had encounters before/after incarceration), interventions performed, follow-up interval requested, urgency of follow-up, and actual time to subsequent follow-up. Primary outcome measures were no-show rate and timeliness, which was defined as follow-up within 1.5× the requested period. Results There were 489 patients included during the study period, representing a total of 2,014 clinical encounters. Of the 489 patients, 189 (38.7%) were seen once. Of the remaining 300 patients with more than one encounter, 184 (61.3%) ultimately did not return and only 24 (8%) were always on time for every encounter. Of 1,747 encounters with specific follow-up requested, 1,072 were considered timely (61.3%). Factors significantly associated with subsequent loss to follow-up include whether a procedure was performed ( p < 0.0001), urgency of follow-up ( p < 0.0001), incarcerated status ( p = 0.0408), and whether follow-up was requested ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion Almost two-thirds of incarcerated patients in our population requiring repeat examination were lost to follow-up, particularly those who underwent an intervention or required more urgent follow-up. Patients entering and exiting the penal system were less likely to follow-up while incarcerated. Further work is needed to understand how these gaps compare to those in the general population and to identify means of improving these outcomes.
目的:在门诊眼科中,被监禁的患者是一个独特的弱势群体,这一群体的随访可靠性尚不确定。方法回顾性分析2012年7月至2016年9月在某学术医疗中心眼科门诊评估的连续嵌顿患者的观察图。每次就诊记录如下:患者的年龄、性别、就诊时的监禁状态(一部分患者在就诊前或就诊后)、进行的干预措施、要求的随访时间间隔、随访的紧迫性以及到后续随访的实际时间。主要结局指标为缺勤率和及时性,定义为在1.5倍要求时间内随访。结果研究期间共纳入489例患者,共涉及2014次临床就诊。489例患者中189例(38.7%)见过一次。在剩下的300名不止一次就诊的患者中,184名(61.3%)最终没有回来,只有24名(8%)每次都按时就诊。在1,747例要求进行具体随访的病例中,1,072例被认为是及时的(61.3%)。与后续随访损失显著相关的因素包括是否进行了手术(p p p = 0.0408),以及是否要求随访(p结论:在我们的人群中,近三分之二需要重复检查的被监禁患者未能随访,特别是那些接受了干预或需要更紧急随访的患者。进入和离开刑罚系统的患者在监禁期间跟进的可能性较小。需要进一步的工作来了解这些差距与一般人群的差距如何比较,并确定改善这些结果的方法。