ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2019
Cost and Visit Duration of Same-Day Access at an Academic Ophthalmology Department vs Emergency Department.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmology emergency department visits in a Brazilian tertiary hospital over the last 11 years: data analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2023Article
- An emergency room influx and trauma cases prediction in a Brazilian ophthalmological hospital by an ophthalmologist without code experience.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2022Article
- The burden of flashes and floaters in traditional general emergency services and utilization of ophthalmology on-call consultation: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of an Ambulatory Ophthalmology Urgent Care Clinic.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2022Article
- Increased Total Cost and Lack of Diagnostic Utility for Emergency Department Visits After ACL Injury.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Utilization trends of an ophthalmology-specific emergency department: the Massachusetts Eye and Ear experience.Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO · 2021Article
- Retrospective Optimization of the Hawkeye Orbital Fracture Prioritization and Evaluation Algorithms for Triaging Ophthalmic Care.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- Epidemiology and follow-up adherence of ophthalmic emergencies: A 10-year study at a tertiary medical center in Taiwan.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- A Retrospective Analysis of Visit Durations and Referral Attendance for Pediatric Ocular Conditions Seen in Emergency and Urgent Care Settings.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Convenient outpatient access for ophthalmology patients seeking urgent care could offer savings compared with an emergency department (ED) visit. Objective: To evaluate the costs and visit durations of same-day access (SDA) in an ophthalmology department at an academic medical center vs ED care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center study was a retrospective quality improvement analysis of an institutional electronic medical record system at the Wilmer Eye Institute clinics and the Johns Hopkins Hospital ED. On June 1, 2015, the Wilmer Eye Institute and Johns Hopkins Hospital initiated an official policy of providing SDA to patients calling for appointments (ie, the same-day project). All ophthalmology clinic locations created same-day appointment slots for at least 1 practitioner. In recognition of seasonal variations in patient visit volumes, the 10 months before implementation (August 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015) were compared with complementary periods in 2015 to 2016 and 2016 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study tabulated encounters, charges, and visit length for outpatients seen on the same day or by previously scheduled appointments. For the ED patients, volume, diagnoses, charges, and length of stay data were collected. The numbers of SDA patients who indicated urgency were tabulated. Results: The number of SDA patients increased from 22 781 to 26 579 for the first year after SDA implementation. The mean charge was $258 (95% CI, $250-$266; median, $184; interquartile range [IQR], $175-$320), and the mean clinic transit time was 1.55 hours (95% CI, 1.54-1.57 hours; median, 1.28 hours). For patients seeking eye care in the ED, the mean professional fee was $401 (95% CI, $390-$411; median, $360; IQR, $255-$500), the mean (SD) total hospital charge was $1040 ($999) (95% CI, $729-$1079; median, $1002; IQR, $334-$1429), and the mean length of stay was 7.30 hours (95% CI, 7.01-7.57 hours; median, 7.20 hours). The top 4 ophthalmic diagnoses for ED patients were conjunctivitis, cornea abrasion, iritis, and visual loss, which were unchanged after SDA implementation. In calendar year 2017, a total of 4062 SDA patients reported urgency; their estimated savings in charges compared with an ED visit were $580 866 in professional fees and $3 176 484 in hospital charges. Conclusions and Relevance: Same-day access appears to be less expensive and to require less time in the health care system than a visit to the ED for an ophthalmic diagnosis. Substantial savings in time and money might be achieved if urgent eye care is delivered in the clinic rather than the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.