The Role of Optometry in the Delivery of Eye Care via Telehealth: A Systematic Literature Review
Introduction
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. As a result, the capacity of health systems to continue to deliver optometry services in an office-based face-to-face experience has been restricted to ensure the safety of both the patient and the provider. In response to the need to maintain essential optometry services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a dramatic rise in the utilization of telehealth services, and the profession has moved rapidly toward the adoption and delivery of teleoptometry. The increase in the uptake of telehealth to deliver optometry care during COVID-19 has caused the optometry profession to reimagine the role of telehealth.
Telehealth is a promising and well-received approach to connect practitioners and patients to deliver health care to individuals where access and resources may be limited.1 The utilization of telehealth is becoming increasingly widespread in health care, with the many applications extending to numerous medical specialties. A recent systematic review highlighted the effectiveness of telemedicine in specialties, including telepsychiatry, teleradiology, and telecardiology. The review demonstrated the efficacy of consultations between primary and secondary level health care providers2 and described the criticisms of the limited and inconsistent evidence surrounding efficacy and cost-effectiveness in telemedicine.2,3
Other investigations that relate to the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine compared to conventional health care delivery has been found to be inconclusive at this time.1,4,5 While there is evidence that showed telemedicine to be cost-effective when delivered in rural and remote areas,6 conclusions shared in the systematic review by Ekeland et al.2 called for more extensive studies to address the limited and inconsistent results regarding impact and cost in the literature.
The terms telehealth and telemedicine are at times used interchangeably. However, in an evaluation of peer-reviewed definitions of these terms, Sood et al.7 demonstrated that these terms are not synonymous, and telemedicine is a subset of telehealth. Telemedicine is limited in scope to the delivery of the clinical service aspects of health care, whereas telehealth is more expansive and covers the preventive, promotive, and curative aspects of health care.8 For the purposes of this review, the term “telehealth” will be used when referring to telehealth or telemedicine.
There are two primary forms of telehealth: synchronous and asynchronous telehealth. Synchronous telehealth refers to the delivery of consultations in real-time.9 For example, video consultations commonly included prescribing medications, reassurance, or escalating the need for an in-person appointment.10 In contrast, asynchronous telehealth involves transmitting health information in a store-and-forward approach that does not require real-time communication,11 and applications include screening for diabetic retinopathy and retinopathy of prematurity.12
The telehealth model has been applied across many health domains. Teleophthalmology is a well-researched discipline in telemedicine that is highly regarded by practitioners13 and patients.14–16 Teleophthalmology is an evidence-based intervention where ophthalmologists deliver specialty care in hospital and outpatient settings to unserved or underserved populations.14
Teleophthalmology is often dependent on optometrists and other skilled health workers to capture and transmit patient information. Applications of teleophthalmology are feasible for triage, screening, consultation, and remote supervision.17 Screening for diabetic retinopathy is one such service commonly delivered by teleophthalmology, and in the United States, teleophthalmology screening services for diabetic retinopathy include optometrists.18 Numerous systematic reviews support the use of teleophthalmology,19 citing teleophthalmology to be cost-efficient, reliable, and valid.20 Teleoptometry care models delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic include urgent care for acute eye health concerns, deterioration of chronic eye conditions, and other consultations, including contact lens follow-up.
In recent years, there has been increasing reports of optometry services being provided via telehealth. Teleoptometry can be defined as the application of optometrist-provided care via telehealth. The increasing utilization of teleoptometry is partly due to the emergence of novel and innovative approaches to eye care delivery supported by high-speed internet and continual software and equipment innovation in the eye care sector.
During the initial phases of the lockdown, only 5.54% of optometric services were delivered in optometry practices in Pakistan compared to prelockdown.21 The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations such as those living in remote areas, elderly people, socially disadvantaged people, children, and people living with disabilities to access optometric care. The inability for these at-risk patients to present in-person contributed to an increase in inequity in accessing eye care services. Telehealth can increase access to health care to vulnerable groups by reducing barriers, including reduced travel time and cost.22,23 The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need to create innovative approaches to provide primary eye care to vulnerable populations who experience barriers to access eye care.24,25
Rationale
A number of studies detail the application of teleophthalmology programs in underserved areas and populations.26–28 However, despite growing interest in adopting teleoptometry during the pandemic, there is a paucity of published literature regarding the role of optometry in telehealth. Further, there is a lack of policies and protocols to guide the delivery of optometry services via telehealth platforms. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is leading the expansion of optometry-facilitated telehealth services with the introduction of protocols and services, including low-vision rehabilitation, teleretinal screening services in primary care clinics, and Technology-based Eye Care Services (TECS). Globally, there is an urgent need to collate current evidence on the use of optometric care delivered by telehealth.
Objectives
The purpose of this report is to conduct a literature review to seek all of the peer-reviewed evidence surrounding the application of optometry services when delivered via telehealth models.
Methods
This review includes only peer-reviewed publications that were in English. Publications that were limited to a review of the literature were excluded. All peer-reviewed publications that included optometrists in the telehealth service were included in this review. Due to the scoping nature of the literature review, abstract presentations were included in the eligibility criteria.
Search Strategy
A comprehensive database search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Global Health and Web of Science in October 2020. Reference lists were hand-searched for other relevant articles by the primary author. MEDLINE was searched using the following search string: “teleoptometry” OR “tele-optometry” OR “telemedicine” OR “telehealth” OR “teleophthalmology” OR “ehealth” OR “telecare” Or “video consultation” OR “electronic consultation” OR “e consultation” OR “virtual consultation” OR “remote consultation” OR “videoconferencing” OR “mhealth” AND “optom*”. Relevant MeSH terms were included in the search strategy. Analogous search terms were used for Global Health and Web of Science. No limits on study design or intervention were imposed. No restrictions were applied to publication date or location.
Included Studies
In total, 206 abstracts were identified via database searching. Nine additional studies were included that were identified through other sources. Following the removal of duplicates, 212 references were screened. Fifty-one full-text articles and four articles limited to abstracts only were accessed and included by the first author. Of the remaining articles, 27 met the inclusion criteria for analysis (Fig. 1).
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Following the review of full-text and abstract articles, a framework for data extraction and synthesis was developed, and the first author, (J.M.) independently extracted relevant data into Microsoft Excel. The framework listed the variables to be extracted from each article and included year, study design, country, study focus, mode of telehealth, population, collaboration type, and study summary.
Results
In total, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. The first published study in optometry-facilitated teleoptometry emerged in 1999, where Smythe29 reported on a study exploring teleoptometry to facilitate contact lens fittings via asynchronous video. Since 1999, there has been a surge in studies examining optometry-facilitated telehealth in recent years, with most publications emerging between 2015 and 2021 (n = 20). Table 1 provides a summary of the 27 publications relating the optometric care in telehealth.
FIRST AUTHOR (YEAR) | STUDY DESIGN | COUNTRY | STUDY FOCUS, FOR EXAMPLE, SERVICE UPTAKE, SATISFACTION | MODE OF TELEMEDICINE | POPULATION | COLLABORATION TYPE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nguyen (2020) | Retrospective audit | Australia | On-call general Teleophthalmology consultation facilitated by optometrists in real-time | Synchronous; asynchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
O’Day (2016) | Prospective audit | Australia | Intervention to increase optometric use of Teleophthalmology service | Synchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Bartnik (2018) | Retrospective audit | Australia | Uptake of optometry-facilitated Teleophthalmology | Synchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Turner (2016) | Prospective audit | Australia | Utilization of real-time Teleophthalmology service | Synchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Johnson (2015) | Prospective audit | Australia | Utilization of real-time Teleophthalmology service | Synchronous; asynchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Host (2018) | Questionnaire | Australia | Patient satisfaction following real-time teleophthalmology service | Synchronous | Rural and remote Australia in the state of Western Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Tahhan (2020) | Retrospective audit | Australia | Utilization of task-sharing collaboration between optometrists and ophthalmologists to assess and manage patients via telemedicine | Asynchronous | Patients with low-risk diabetic retinopathy in Western Sydney, Australia | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Verma (2014) | Retrospective cohort | Canada | Clinical outcomes in a remote teleglaucoma service | Asynchronous | Open-angle glaucoma suspects in Northern Alberta, Canada | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Hanson (2008) | Retrospective case series | Canada | Optometrist-facilitated retinal teleophthalmology triage | Asynchronous | Patients requiring retinal specialist in Alberta, Canada | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Bittner (2018) | Prospective case series | Canada | Feasibility of telerehabilitation among practitioners and patients | Synchronous | Patients requiring low vision telerehabilitation in Canada | Patient-optometrist |
Giorgis (2019) | Prospective cohort | Ethiopia | Determine the prevalence of glaucoma among high-risk patients; referral pathways were analysed | Asynchronous | High-risk glaucoma suspects in Addis Ababa | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Karthikeyan (2020) | Questionnaire | India | Examined the change in clinical optometric practice during the COVID-19 pandemic | Synchronous; asynchronous | Registered optometrists in India | Patient-optometrist |
Verma (2009) | Retrospective case series | India | Determined the feasibility of utilizing teleconsultation to diagnose adnexal and orbital disease | Synchronous; asynchronous | Patients located in remote areas in India | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
de Mul (2004) | Prospective cohort | Netherlands | Explored optometry-facilitated teleophthalmology service | Asynchronous | Glaucoma suspects in The Netherlands | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
de Bont (2008) | Mixed methods | Netherlands | Explored teleophthalmology shared-care glaucoma screening | Asynchronous | Glaucoma suspects in Rotterdam | Patient-optometrist-technician-ophthalmologist |
Zapata (2017) | Prospective cohort | Spain | Utilization of optometry practices to provide retinal screening via telemedicine | Asynchronous | Patients attending optometrist in Spain | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Keenan (2015) | Prospective audit | United Kingdom | Implementation of a telemedicine referral system to improve communication with optometrists | Asynchronous | Glaucoma suspects in the United Kingdom | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Kern (2020) | Retrospective cohort | United Kingdom | Optometrists evaluating glaucoma referrals in the community | Asynchronous | Patients referred for retinal consultation in the United Kingdom | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Ghazala (2021) | Mixed methods | United Kingdom | Video consultation between the optometrist, ophthalmologist, and vitreoretinal surgeon for suspected retinal detachments | Synchronous | Patients presenting to the Emergency Eye Care Treatment Centers at the NHS Forth Valley | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Patel (2020) | Questionnaire | Unknown | Examination of patient experiences and perception of teleoptometric examination compared to in-person optometric exam | Synchronous | Patients attending optometrist examination | Patient-technician-optometrist |
Smythe (1999) | Interobserver reliability | United States | Optometrists receiving consultation on contact lens problem cases via teleoptometry | Asynchronous | Patients requiring RGP contact lenses in the United States | Optometrist-optometrist |
Randhawa (2020) | Interobserver reliability | United States | Examination of the validity of spectacle prescriptions determined via teleoptometry compared to in-person examination | Synchronous | Optometry students in the state of Illinois | Patient-optometrist |
Ihrig (2016) | Practice report | United States | Collaboration between ophthalmologists, optometrists, and blind rehabilitation therapists to provide low vision telerehabilitation | Synchronous | Patients attending low vision rehabilitation services via telemedicine | Patient-optometrist; Patient-technician-optometrist |
Owsley (2015) | Prospective cohort | United States | Evaluates a teleglaucoma program in primary eye care setting with a large African American population | Asynchronous | Patients at-risk of developing glaucoma in the state of Alabama | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Sapru (2017) | Cross-sectional; pre-post | United States | Evaluation of a mobile eye health and telemedicine program targeting people at high-risk of developing glaucoma | Asynchronous | African Americans ≥50 years; all adults ≥60 years in Philadelphia deemed at high-risk of developing glaucoma | Patient-optometrist-ophthalmologist |
Ihrig (2018) | Retrospective audit | United States | Retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance and practicality of low vision telerehabilitation | Synchronous | Veterans with low vision | Patient-technician-optometrist |
Ihrig (2014) | Clinical protocol for pilot study | United States | Clinical protocol outlining the pilot delivery of low vision rehabilitation services to veterans | Synchronous | Veterans with low vision | Patient-technician-optometrist |
Publication dates of all studies included in this review ranged between 1999 and 2020. The location of the studies reviewed include seven studies conducted in Australia,16,30–35 seven in the United States,29,36–41 three in Canada,42–44 two in India,45,46 two in The Netherlands,47,48 three in the United Kingdom,49–51 one study was conducted in an undisclosed location,52 and single studies were conducted in Ethiopia53 and Spain.54
Study Characteristics
Prospective study designs represent the largest number of included studies, including four cohort studies36,48,53,54 and four prospective audits.31,33,34,49 Other frequently utilized study designs included retrospective audits (n = 4),30,32,35,41 interobserver reliability studies (n = 2),29,37 questionnaires (n = 3),16,46,52 and mixed methods studies (n = 2).47,51 Less frequently utilized study designs included retrospective cohorts (n = 2),44,50 retrospective case series (n = 2),43,45 one clinical protocol,39 a prospective case series,42 a clinical protocol for a pilot study,40 and a cross-sectional pre–post study38 (Table 1).
Of the 27 studies reporting the involvement of an optometrist to deliver telehealth, only 11 studies included the role of optometrists as a member of the telehealth team providing eye care services.29,36–42,44,46,52 That is, the optometrist had a role in the care of the patient beyond providing and receiving telehealth referrals, being present for the teleconsultation, collecting clinical data required for asynchronous teleophthalmology consultations, and providing the patient with continuing care following telehealth consultation with an ophthalmologist.
Mode of Telehealth used to Deliver Eye Care Services
Table 1 outlines the inclusion of optometry in the delivery of eye care services via different models of telehealth. Of the 27 studies that included optometrists in the telehealth model of care, 12 studies utilized asynchronous telehealth,29,35,36,38,43,44,47–50,53,54 where the optometrist collected clinical data from the patient in an in-person consultation that usually accompanied a referral to a teleophthalmology service. Eleven studies used synchronous telehealth,16,30,33,34,37,39–42,51,52 where optometrists used video consultations to deliver primary care, including low-vision rehabilitation, consulted with general and subspecialty ophthalmologists to improve the efficiency of the referral process, and delivered comprehensive eye examinations with the assistance of an in-person technician.
The remaining four studies utilized both synchronous and asynchronous methods of delivering eye care via telehealth.31,32,45,46 The role of optometrists in these hybrid telehealth services involved optometrists consulting with the patients to collect the clinical data required for the ophthalmologist to asynchronously review, followed by the optometrist supporting the video consultation between the patient and the ophthalmologist.
Telehealth Collaboration Type
The most common form of collaboration involving optometrists is the delivery of eye care via teleophthalmology. In 19 studies, the optometrist facilitates the referral, communication, and management plans between the patient and the teleophthalmology service.16,30–36,38,43–45,47–51,53, 54 In this collaboration type, optometrists are often consulting in-person with the patient.
Eight studies described the independent application of teleoptometry between the patient and the optometrist.29,37,39–42,46,52 The scope of practice of independent teleoptometry included optometrists delivering comprehensive eye examinations assisted by a technician,52 performing subjective refractions via a digital platform that included videoconferencing,37 seeking advice from other optometry colleagues via teleoptometry,29 supporting low-vision rehabilitation via teleconference (often supported by a technician who is present with the patient),39–42 and providing primary eye care during the COVID-19 pandemic.46
The format and geographical areas where eye care via telehealth is being delivered
Single reports of other forms of collaborations were observed, including technicians working between the optometrist and ophthalmologist,47 where the optometrist collected retinal photos to send to the ophthalmology clinic for interpretation by the hospital technician. In this study, the scope of practice of optometrists was limited to refraction care.
Optometry-facilitated telehealth was most frequently observed in general teleophthalmology services, and accounted for nine of the included studies.16,30–35,47,50 Optometrists have a role in other teleophthalmology subspecialties, including anterior and orbital disease,45 and triaging for medical retina.43,51,54 The role of optometrists in glaucoma management via telehealth was explored in six studies.36,38,44,48,49,53 The scope of practice of optometrists reported in these publications included organizing referrals to teleophthalmology services, and facilitating videoconference calls between patients and specialists.
The role of optometrists in these comanagement arrangements also included initiating management plans made by ophthalmologists, booking patients for surgery during the consultation, and in asynchronous telehealth services, the optometrist communicated the ophthalmology findings to the patient.
Two studies reported on the level of agreement between optometrist clinical findings as rated by an ophthalmologist or optometrist.29,37 Furthermore, telerehabilitation emerged as an area where optometrists can deliver teleoptometry to patients who have low vision (usually supported by technicians who are with the patient in-person),39–42 or as part of a collaboration with other optometrists and ophthalmologists.39 Teleoptometry was utilized by optometrists to remotely conduct comprehensive eye examinations using a platform supported by technicians present with the patients.52
Teleoptometry was reportedly utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic to support the delivery of primary eye care,46 however, the details of how teleoptometry was conducted were not reported.
Thirteen of the included studies exclusively examined optometry-facilitated telehealth in rural settings.16,30–34,36,39–42,45,53 In these rural settings, synchronous telehealth was most commonly utilized (n = 8), as opposed to asynchronous (n = 2) or mixed-format telehealth (n = 3).
Discussion
This review highlights the unique and important role optometrists have in meeting the eye care needs of populations at different levels of the health care system. A strength of this study is that it is the first review to synthesize what is known about how telehealth is being utilized to provide optometric care in the form of teleoptometry. The studies exploring optometry-facilitated telehealth varied by country, population, and mode of telehealth. The common utilization of comanagement arrangements between optometrists and ophthalmologists emerged as an area with great potential that is already highly utilized. In delivering optometric care via telehealth independent of ophthalmology, teleoptometry emerged as an area where contact lens consultations can be conducted,29 subjective refractions may be performed,37 and low-vision services can be delivered to patients.39–42
Of the 215 studies identified in the search, only 27 studies were deemed relevant to the research question. This review highlights a paucity of published research in teleoptometry, and more broadly, research supporting optometry’s role in telehealth. Although the delivery of optometry has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve patient access to eye care46; only 11 studies published in the area of telehealth expanded the role of optometrists in the telehealth service beyond sending referrals, collecting data required for asynchronous teleophthalmology, and supporting the telehealth consultation between the ophthalmologist and the patient.29,36–42,44,46,52
The role of optometrists in the remaining 16 publications is as an indirect facilitator in the delivery of telehealth,16,30–35,43,45,47–51,53,54 primarily referring patients into a teleopthalmology service.16,30–35,43,50,51,53 Other indirect roles of optometrists in telehealth services include the following: collecting clinical data required for the teleophthalmology consultation16,30,31,35,43,45,47–50,54; providing support to the patient during the video consultation16,30–34,45,51; suggest a management plan to accompany the referral35,49; and initiate the management plan recommended by the ophthalmologist if the patient is referred back to the care of the optometrist.35,43,45,47,48
Acceptability of Optometry-Facilitated Telehealth
The published literature exploring practitioner and patient acceptability of teleoptometry is limited; however, the literature that does exist in the area reports high levels of satisfaction. Two studies examining synchronous teleophthalmology services in rural Western Australia report an overall acceptance of teleoptometry by patients. In addition, patients in rural locations highly value the role of optometrists when attending teleophthalmology consultations.16,31 Furthermore, Patel et al.52 report that most patients were highly satisfied with the quality of care they received when attending a comprehensive teleoptometric eye examination.
Interestingly, one study identified older patients as having a greater acceptance of optometric care delivered via telehealth.32 Research by Verma et al.44 also highlights increased management continuity and patient engagement via the role of collaboration with optometrists to deliver teleophthalmology services.
In the area of telerehabilitation, Bittner et al.42 found that all patients were satisfied and comfortable receiving low-vision evaluation and rehabilitation via teleoptometry. Patients who received low-vision services via teleoptometry perceived the accuracy of the evaluation as equal to an in-person consultation. Providing low-vision services via teleoptometry allowed additional follow-up consultations that would not usually occur at in-person services. Similarly, Ihrig41 states veterans who attended the low-vision telerehabilitation service report being highly satisfied with the care they received. Vision aids significantly improve quality of life55; the area of telehrehabilitation is an area with great potential to assist patients who cannot access low-vision rehabilitation at in-person services.
The Role of Collaborative Partnerships
The literature highlights the significance of the collaboration between optometrists and ophthalmologists in the delivery of teleophthalmology. Despite the lack of financial reimbursement, optometrists have the greatest utilization of telehealth consultations with ophthalmologists of any of health care provider.31 At present, only a single study explores the positive impact of introducing financial incentives for optometrists to deliver telehealth services.34 Furthermore, Karthikeyan et al.46 reported that in India, 50.94% of optometrists offered teleoptometry services at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, 85.19% of those optometrists did not charge for the service.
Studies report increased efficiency and access to ophthalmology surgical care when optometrists facilitate teleophthalmology services between the patient and the ophthalmologist.30,31,36,43,54 Improved referral refinement50 and triaging of specialist referrals has also been demonstrated to reduce unnecessary in-person consultations,43 thereby reducing the workload of tertiary services,47 and increase case detection.53
Keenan et al.49 highlights how the skills of optometrists can be effectively and safely utilised in colloborations with ophthalmologists to evaluate glaucoma referrals at the community level via telehealth in the form of comanagement arrangements. Comanagement plans were determined by the ophthalmologists and implemented by the optometrist.38 This application of task sharing increases the capacity of tertiary ophthalmology services. However, Verma et al.44 reported limitations in comanagement arrangements where there was a lack of infrastructure with respect to data collection needed to understand optometrist adherence to management plans outlined by the ophthalmologist.
The application of teleoptometry in primary eye care reduces some of the logistical barriers vulnerable patients face.39,54 Utilizing optometrists to virtually comanage glaucoma45 reduces the need for some patients to attend in-person consultations with ophthalmologists44 and reduces the indirect costs of care. In contexts where optometrists have a limited scope of practice, optometrists are involved in telehealth comanaged screening.48 In addition, utilizing optometry-facilitated telehealth to prebook in-person ophthalmology procedures via telehealth reduces the number of practice visits and increases the efficiency of in-person consultations.43 This is further highlighted by Turner et al.34 who reported that 44% of patients who attended an optometrist-facilitated telehealth consultation were directly booked for surgery.
Optometrists who provide teleoptometry services and are involved in comanagement arrangements benefit from the learning opportunities that arise from continuous feedback given by ophthalmologists; these collaborative arrangements foster upskilling.48,53 In addition, optometrists in rural locations who are involved in teleophthalmology delivery directly benefit by having greater access to teleophthalmology services available when seeking timely specialist consultation.31
A study examining interobserver agreement is favorable. A meeting abstract published by Randhawa et al.37 examining telehealth-delivered subjective refraction found no statistically significant difference between in-person and telehealth-delivered subjective refraction.
A single study has been published on the cost-effectiveness of optometry-facilitated telehealth services; Ihrig41 demonstrated the delivery of low-vision telerehabilitation significantly reduced the cost to the individual and increased access to the low-vision service compared to in-person services.
Limitations
The literature review has several limitations. This review represents peer-reviewed literature published in English only. Another flaw in the review is the fact that many of the studies included assessed the role of optometry in telehealth as a secondary research outcome. Furthermore, the dates of publication vary widely and extend back to 1999. Technological innovation in telehealth has rapidly evolved over the past two decades, and therefore the results from the studies should be considered in the context of publication date.
The scope of practice in optometry varies between countries. At present, comanagement between ophthalmology and optometry is commonplace in many countries. As a result, the studies included presented recommendations about the role of optometry in telehealth that varied depending on the location and may not reflect what is available globally. This variability reflects a paucity of studies in the area of teleoptometry and the need for further research.
Conclusion
The role of optometrists in telehealth is rapidly emerging, and the field has great potential. Teleoptometry appears to be a viable adjunct to the delivery of eye care, or where necessary, an alternative to in-person optometric services. The literature highlights the multiple applications of optometry-facilitated telehealth, including care delivered as part of a collaboration with ophthalmology, or independently through telerehabilitation and teleoptometry.
The suitability of teleoptometry as an adjunct to face-to-face optometric care using telehealth is feasible. The literature demonstrates teleoptometry to be highly acceptable to patients and practitioners. The role of optometrists in providing eye care services via telehealth has value for many individuals, including the elderly, people living with a disability, and people living in rural locations. However, there is a scarcity of evidence regarding clinical benefits, safety, and outcomes of optometry-facilitated teleoptometry. More significant research is required to determine safe and effective models of integrating optometry into the delivery of telehealth services.
Furthermore, there is only a small number of peer-reviewed policies and protocols published at present to guide the delivery of optometry services via telehealth platforms. This review of the current evidence base in optometry services delivered via telehealth will guide future research and policy creation. The continued creation of focused, inclusive teleoptometry strategies and policies will support achieving equitable access to optometry services. Further, additional advocacy surrounding increased research that supports policy development and appropriate reimbursement for optometric services is needed to address financial barriers to uptake. Policymakers should heed caution in recommending ongoing and increased use of teleoptometry applications pending further research.
This review demonstrates the severe paucity of evidence-based research in teleoptometry. Providers of teleoptometry should be mindful that none of the studies included an economic analysis of optometric telehealth. No studies included a safety analysis, highlighting the urgent need for research in the area. As the field of teleoptometry is in its infancy, outside of the area of low-vision telerehabilitation, there is limited peer-reviewed evidence to support optometry services delivered via telehealth as a safe, acceptable and cost-effective means to provide health care. Findings of the review did not constitute evidence of the safety of optometric care via telehealth, unless under the supervision of an ophthalmologist where a comanagement plan is in place.
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization: J.M., P.M., and S.S.B.; writing—original draft preparation: J.M.; writing—review and editing: J.M., P.M., and S.S.B. All authors have agreed to the published version of the article.
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
This review has been funded by the World Council of Optometry.
References
- 1. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ 2000;320:1517–1520. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 2. Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:736–771. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 3. Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. Great Britain: Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited, 2005:60. Google Scholar
- 4. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 2002;324:1434–1437. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 5. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare 2011;18:1–6. Medline, Google Scholar
- 6. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e11330. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 7. What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. Telemed J E Health 2007;13:573–590. Link, Google Scholar
- 8. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11:1279–1298. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 9. Telemedicine: Opportunities and developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009 (Global Observatory for eHealth Series, Volume 2). Healthc Inform Res 2012;18:153–155. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 10. Incorporating video visits into ophthalmology practice: A retrospective analysis and patient survey to assess initial experiences and patient acceptability at an academic eye center. Ophthalmol Ther 2020;9:549–562. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 11. Telehealth systems. 2020. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459384 (last accessed
October 12, 2020 ). Google Scholar . - 12. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: Vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e489–e551. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 13. Eye care providers’ attitudes towards tele-ophthalmology. Telemed J E Health 2015;21:271–273. Link, Google Scholar
- 14. Teleophthalmology: Improving patient outcomes? Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:285–295. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 15. Improving diabetic retinopathy screening in Africa: Patient satisfaction with teleophthalmology versus ophthalmologist-based screening. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2013;20:56–60. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 16. Real-time teleophthalmology video consultation: An analysis of patient satisfaction in rural Western Australia. Clin Exp Optom 2018;101:129–134. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 17. Models of care in tele-ophthalmology: A scoping review. J Telemed Telecare 2017;25:106–122. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 18. Diabetic retinopathy assessment variability among eye care providers in an urban teleophthalmology program. Telemed J E Health 2018;25:301–308. Link, Google Scholar
- 19. Real-time teleophthalmology versus face-to-face consultation: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2016;23:629–638. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 20. A systematic review of teleophthalmological studies in Europe. Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11:314–325. Medline, Google Scholar .
- 21. Utility of teleconsultation in accessing eye care in a developing country during COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 2021;16:e0245343. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 22. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: A systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016242. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 23. Exploring patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of video consultations in primary care: A systematic scoping review. BJGP Open 2020. DOI:
10.3399/bjgpopen20X101020 . Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar - 24. Barriers to attending an eye examination after vision screening referral within a vulnerable population. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2013;24:1042–1052. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 25. Correcting Indigenous Australians’ refractive error and presbyopia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013;41:320–328. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 26. Teleophthalmology: A model for eye care delivery in rural and underserved areas of India. Int J Family Med 2011;2011:683267. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 27. Teleophthalmology in practice: Lessons learned from a pilot project. Open Med Inform J 2017;11:20–28. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 28. Telemedicine for eye care. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11:391–396. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 29. Teleoptometry: Contact lens consultation via the internet [Dissertation]. Forest Grove, OR: College of Optometry, Pacific University; 1999. Google Scholar
- 30. Optometry-facilitated teleophthalmology: An audit of the first year in Western Australia. Clin Exp Optom 2018;101:700–703. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 31. Real-time teleophthalmology in rural Western Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2015;23:142–149. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 32. On-call telehealth for visiting optometry in regional Western Australia improves patient access to eye care. Clin Exp Optom 2020;103:393–394. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 33. Optometric use of a teleophthalmology service in rural Western Australia: Comparison of two prospective audits. Clin Exp Optom 2016;99:163–167. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 34. Optometry-facilitated videoconference uptake in Western Australia following introduction of new MBS item numbers. Clin Exp Optom 2016;44:42. Google Scholar .
- 35. Evaluating the cost and wait-times of a task-sharing model of care for diabetic eye care: A case study from Australia. BMJ Open 2020;10:e036842. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 36. Eye Care Quality and Accessibility Improvement in the Community (EQUALITY) for adults at risk for glaucoma: Study rationale and design. Int J Equity Health 2015;14:135. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar , et al.
- 37. The validity of spectacle prescriptions via tele-optometric comprehensive eye examinations; a pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2020;61:1604. Google Scholar
- 38. Applying RE-AIM to evaluate two community-based programs designed to improve access to eye care for those at high-risk for glaucoma. Eval Progr Planning 2017;65:40–46. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 39. Steps to offering low vision rehabilitation services through clinical video telehealth. J Visual Impairm Blindness 2016;110:441–447. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 40. Rural healthcare pilot clinic: Low vision clinical video telehealth. Optometr Educ 2014;40:14–17. Google Scholar
- 41. Travel cost savings and practicality for low-vision telerehabilitation. Telemed J E Health 2018;25:649–654. Link, Google Scholar
- 42. Feasibility of telerehabilitation for low vision: Satisfaction ratings by providers and patients. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:865–872. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 43. Optometric referrals to retina specialists: Evaluation and triage via teleophthalmology. Telemed J E Health 2008;14:441. Link, Google Scholar .
- 44. Northern Alberta remote teleglaucoma program: Clinical outcomes and patient disposition. Can J Ophthalmol 2014;49:135–140. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 45. Application of tele-ophthalmology in remote diagnosis and management of adnexal and orbital diseases. Indian J Ophthalmol 2009;57:381–384. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 46. Challenges and impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Indian optometry practice: A survey-based study. J Optom 2020;15:145–153. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 47. Telemedicine in interdisciplinary work practices: On an IT system that met the criteria for success set out by its sponsors, yet failed to become part of every-day clinical routines. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008;8:47. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .
- 48. Improving the quality of eye care with tele-ophthalmology: Shared-care glaucoma screening. J Telemed Telecare 2004;10:331–336. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 49. Cambridge community Optometry Glaucoma Scheme. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2015;43:221–227. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 50. Implementation of a cloud-based referral platform in ophthalmology: Making telemedicine services a reality in eye care. Br J Opthalmol 2020;104:312–317. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 51. Teleophthalmology-enabled direct vitreoretinal surgery listing from community optometric practice: Enhanced efficiency during coronavirus disease 2019, and beyond? Telemed J E Health 2021;27:816–819. Link, Google Scholar .
- 52. Patient experience of tele-optometry in the comprehensive eye examination; a pilot study. Investig Opthamol Vis Serv 2020;61:1596. Google Scholar
- 53. Results from the first teleglaucoma pilot project in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Glaucoma 2019;28:701–707. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 54. Telemedicine for a general screening of retinal disease using nonmydriatic fundus cameras in optometry centers: Three-year results. Telemed J E Health 2017;23:30–36. Link, Google Scholar
- 55. Low vision aids—Is our service cost effective? Eye 1991;5:607–611. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar .