Background: Ophthalmic clinicians report low confidence in telemedicine-based eye care delivery, but it may have changed given its rapid expansion during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine clinician confidence in telemedicine-based eye care services during COVID-19. Materials and Methods: An electronic survey was sent to clinicians at University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center (April 17, 2020-May 6, 2020) when nonemergent in-person visits and procedures were restricted. The primary outcome was clinician confidence in using telemedicine-based eye care during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included telemedicine utilization and its association with clinician confidence using Fisher's exact test. Results: Of the 88 respondents (90.7% response rate; n = 97 total), 83.0% (n = 73) were ophthalmologists and 17.0% (n = 15) were optometrists. Telemedicine utilization increased from 30.7% (n = 27) before the pandemic to 86.2% (n = 75) after the pandemic. Clinicians' confidence in their ability to use telemedicine varied with 28.6% (24/84) feeling confident/extremely confident, 38.1% (32/84) somewhat confident, and 33.3% (28/84) notat-all confident. Most felt that telemedicine was underutilized (62.1%; 54/87) and planned continued use over the next year (59.8%; 52/87). Confident respondents were more likely to have performed three or more telemedicine visits (p = 0.003), to believe telemedicine was underutilized (p < 0.001), and to anticipate continued use of telemedicine (p = 0.009). Discussion: The majority of clinicians were at least somewhat confident about using telemedicine during the pandemic.Clinician confidence was associated with telemedicine visit volume and intention to continue using telemedicine. Conclusions: Policies that foster clinician confidence will be important to sustain telemedicine-based eye care delivery.

No abstract

Background/Aims: To determine the rate of endophthalmitis and assess risk factors for development of endophthalmitis following open globe injury (OGI). Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients treated for OGI at the University of Michigan from January 2000 to July 2017 was conducted. Exclusion criteria included intravitreal injection or intraocular surgery in the 30 days prior to injury or less than 30 days of follow-up. A total of 586 out of 993 open globe injuries were included in the study. The main outcome measure was the rate of endophthalmitis. Results: In this study, 25/586 eyes (4.3%) had endophthalmitis. Of these, 12/25 eyes (48.0%) presented with endophthalmitis and 13/25 eyes (52.0%) developed endophthalmitis after globe closure. Multivariate analysis identified time to globe repair (OR 4.5, CI 1.9-10.7, p = 0.0008), zone I injury (OR 3.6, CI 1.1-11.0, p = 0.0282), and need for additional surgery (OR 5.5, CI 1.5-19.7, p = 0.0092) as factors associated with increased risk of developing endophthalmitis. Subconjunctival antibiotic injection at the time of globe closure (OR 0.3, CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.0036) was associated with decreased risk of developing endophthalmitis. Conclusion: Prompt globe closure and subconjunctival antibiotics may reduce the risk of endophthalmitis in OGI. Furthermore, our practice of a one-time dose of systemic prophylactic antibiotics, and intravitreal antibiotics if intraocular foreign body (IOFB) removal is delayed, was not found to increase the rate of endophthalmitis.

Background Although students were removed from patient-facing settings at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns of burdening teaching physicians and depleting personal protective equipment, some leaders suggest students can be effectively utilized when personnel resources may be scarce. There have been narrative discussions surrounding medical student involvement, but no studies exploring the attitudes of these students. The authors aim to quantify the degree to which factors influenced a medical student’s decision to or to not volunteer during the pandemic and to characterize medical students’ attitudes towards medical professionals’ duty to serve in a pandemic. Methods The authors developed and tested a secure web-based survey before distribution to students at 23 different US allopathic medical schools that did not graduate medical students early to aid in pandemic efforts between April and June 2020. Of the 599 students who completed the survey, 65.5% self-identified as female and were on average 25.94 years old (SD = 2.5). Multiple comparisons were made based on volunteer status. Ordinal scale questions were compared with the Mann Whitney U test, and the Chi-Squared test was used for categorical variables using R version 3.62. Results 67.6% of students volunteered in pandemic relief activities and a majority of those students volunteered in non-patient-facing roles. Community service, new skills, and time commitment were top 3 influencing factors for students who volunteered, while risk to other, time commitment, and risk to self were top 3 influencing factors for students who chose not to volunteer. Compared to other specialties, students interested in primary care specialties agreed to a greater degree that physicians have a duty to serve in pandemic relief efforts. Conclusions Medical students who volunteered cited self-serving factors and altruistic values as significant motivators. Students who did not volunteer were significantly more concerned with risks of COVID-19 exposure. However, medical students in general agreed that students should be allowed to volunteer in COVID-19 related relief efforts. As large areas of the United States continue to experience increases in COVID-19 cases, institutions should involve medical students in balancing the level of acceptable risk with the educational benefits.