急诊科验光:医师信心与临床实践。

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00843-9
C Ukagwu, J Teichman, M Ben-Yakov, I Dubinsky, A Théogène, R A Sharma
{"title":"急诊科验光:医师信心与临床实践。","authors":"C Ukagwu, J Teichman, M Ben-Yakov, I Dubinsky, A Théogène, R A Sharma","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00843-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Fundoscopy is crucial in the emergency department to identify or rule out serious ocular and neurological conditions. Despite its clinical importance, fundoscopy is often omitted due to the technical challenges associated with traditional direct ophthalmoscopy, particularly for non-ophthalmologists. This study examines emergency physicians' practices, confidence levels, and training related to various modalities of fundoscopy including traditional direct ophthalmoscopes, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes, panoptic ophthalmoscopes, slit lamp fundoscopy and fundus cameras; and explores the potential role of alternative modalities, such as fundus cameras, in Canadian emergency departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was distributed to approximately 1000 emergency physician members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians between March 4 and April 10, 2024. The survey, developed with ophthalmology and emergency medicine experts, included Likert scales and multiple-choice questions addressing confidence, practices, training, and experience with various fundoscopy modalities. Demographic data and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Surveys were anonymous and available in English and French.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-four emergency physicians participated (mean experience 17.8 years), representing all Canadian provinces and territories. Most reported experience with traditional direct ophthalmoscopes (97.3%), slit lamp fundoscopy (82.2%) and panoptic ophthalmoscopes (58.9%). Only 1.4% had used binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes. No participant had experience with fundus cameras. Confidence in identifying fundus findings was low across all modalities, with only 13.7% reporting confidence using traditional ophthalmoscopes. Fundoscopy was performed frequently or always by 57.5% of the respondents, yet only 6.8% routinely used pupil dilation. Only 35.6% of the respondents felt their training in fundoscopy was adequate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emergency physicians in Canada report low confidence in fundoscopy despite its critical role in identifying vision- or life-threatening conditions. Traditional modalities are widely used but remain challenging for non-ophthalmologists. Fundus cameras, which offer ease of use and higher diagnostic accuracy, are underutilized.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emergency department ophthalmoscopy: physician confidence and clinical practices.\",\"authors\":\"C Ukagwu, J Teichman, M Ben-Yakov, I Dubinsky, A Théogène, R A Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-024-00843-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Fundoscopy is crucial in the emergency department to identify or rule out serious ocular and neurological conditions. Despite its clinical importance, fundoscopy is often omitted due to the technical challenges associated with traditional direct ophthalmoscopy, particularly for non-ophthalmologists. This study examines emergency physicians' practices, confidence levels, and training related to various modalities of fundoscopy including traditional direct ophthalmoscopes, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes, panoptic ophthalmoscopes, slit lamp fundoscopy and fundus cameras; and explores the potential role of alternative modalities, such as fundus cameras, in Canadian emergency departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was distributed to approximately 1000 emergency physician members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians between March 4 and April 10, 2024. The survey, developed with ophthalmology and emergency medicine experts, included Likert scales and multiple-choice questions addressing confidence, practices, training, and experience with various fundoscopy modalities. Demographic data and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Surveys were anonymous and available in English and French.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-four emergency physicians participated (mean experience 17.8 years), representing all Canadian provinces and territories. Most reported experience with traditional direct ophthalmoscopes (97.3%), slit lamp fundoscopy (82.2%) and panoptic ophthalmoscopes (58.9%). Only 1.4% had used binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes. No participant had experience with fundus cameras. Confidence in identifying fundus findings was low across all modalities, with only 13.7% reporting confidence using traditional ophthalmoscopes. Fundoscopy was performed frequently or always by 57.5% of the respondents, yet only 6.8% routinely used pupil dilation. Only 35.6% of the respondents felt their training in fundoscopy was adequate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emergency physicians in Canada report low confidence in fundoscopy despite its critical role in identifying vision- or life-threatening conditions. Traditional modalities are widely used but remain challenging for non-ophthalmologists. Fundus cameras, which offer ease of use and higher diagnostic accuracy, are underutilized.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJEM\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJEM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00843-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00843-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:眼底镜检查在急诊科识别或排除严重的眼部和神经系统疾病是至关重要的。尽管具有重要的临床意义,但由于与传统的直接眼科镜检查相关的技术挑战,特别是对于非眼科医生,眼底镜检查经常被忽略。本研究考察了急诊医生的实践、信心水平和与各种形式的眼底镜检查相关的培训,包括传统的直接眼底镜检查、双目间接眼底镜检查、全景眼底镜检查、裂隙灯眼底镜检查和眼底相机检查;并探讨了在加拿大急诊科使用眼底照相机等替代方式的潜在作用。方法:在2024年3月4日至4月10日期间,对加拿大急诊医师协会的约1000名急诊医师成员进行横断面调查。该调查由眼科和急诊医学专家共同开展,包括李克特量表和多项选择题,涉及各种眼底镜检查方式的信心、实践、培训和经验。人口统计数据和回应采用描述性统计进行分析。调查是匿名的,以英文和法文提供。结果:74名急诊医生参与,平均经验17.8年,代表加拿大所有省份和地区。以传统直接检眼镜(97.3%)、裂隙灯眼底镜(82.2%)和全视检眼镜(58.9%)最多。仅1.4%的患者使用了双眼间接检眼镜。没有参与者有眼底相机的经验。所有验光方式对眼底检查结果的识别置信度都很低,只有13.7%的人报告使用传统验光镜时的置信度。57.5%的受访者经常或经常进行眼底镜检查,而只有6.8%的受访者常规使用瞳孔扩张。只有35.6%的受访者认为他们在眼底镜检查方面的培训是充分的。结论:尽管眼底镜检查在识别视力或危及生命的疾病中起着至关重要的作用,但加拿大的急诊医生报告对眼底镜检查的信任度较低。传统的方式被广泛使用,但对非眼科医生仍然具有挑战性。眼底相机虽然使用方便,诊断准确性更高,但尚未得到充分利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Emergency department ophthalmoscopy: physician confidence and clinical practices.

Objectives: Fundoscopy is crucial in the emergency department to identify or rule out serious ocular and neurological conditions. Despite its clinical importance, fundoscopy is often omitted due to the technical challenges associated with traditional direct ophthalmoscopy, particularly for non-ophthalmologists. This study examines emergency physicians' practices, confidence levels, and training related to various modalities of fundoscopy including traditional direct ophthalmoscopes, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes, panoptic ophthalmoscopes, slit lamp fundoscopy and fundus cameras; and explores the potential role of alternative modalities, such as fundus cameras, in Canadian emergency departments.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to approximately 1000 emergency physician members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians between March 4 and April 10, 2024. The survey, developed with ophthalmology and emergency medicine experts, included Likert scales and multiple-choice questions addressing confidence, practices, training, and experience with various fundoscopy modalities. Demographic data and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Surveys were anonymous and available in English and French.

Results: Seventy-four emergency physicians participated (mean experience 17.8 years), representing all Canadian provinces and territories. Most reported experience with traditional direct ophthalmoscopes (97.3%), slit lamp fundoscopy (82.2%) and panoptic ophthalmoscopes (58.9%). Only 1.4% had used binocular indirect ophthalmoscopes. No participant had experience with fundus cameras. Confidence in identifying fundus findings was low across all modalities, with only 13.7% reporting confidence using traditional ophthalmoscopes. Fundoscopy was performed frequently or always by 57.5% of the respondents, yet only 6.8% routinely used pupil dilation. Only 35.6% of the respondents felt their training in fundoscopy was adequate.

Conclusion: Emergency physicians in Canada report low confidence in fundoscopy despite its critical role in identifying vision- or life-threatening conditions. Traditional modalities are widely used but remain challenging for non-ophthalmologists. Fundus cameras, which offer ease of use and higher diagnostic accuracy, are underutilized.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信