- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Method
- •1.2.1 Databases
- •1.2.2 Dates
- •1.2.3 Keywords
- •1.2.4 Criteria for Inclusion
- •1.2.5 Criteria for Exclusion
- •1.2.6 Selection of Papers
- •1.3 Results
- •1.3.1 Subspecialty
- •1.3.2 Type of Telemedicine
- •1.3.3 Study Design
- •1.3.4 Final Conclusions of Papers
- •1.4 Discussion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 The Need for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programs
- •2.4 Guidelines for Referring Patients
- •2.7 Program Models for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •2.9 Program Personnel and Operations
- •2.9.1 Primary Care Providers
- •2.9.2 Photographers
- •2.9.3 Clinical Consultants
- •2.9.4 Administrators
- •2.9.5 A Note to CEOs, Operations Directors, and Clinic Managers
- •2.10 Policies and Procedures
- •2.10.1 Sample Protocol 1
- •2.10.1.1 Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Services
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.10.2 Sample Protocol 2
- •2.10.2.1 Pupil Dilation Before Diabetic Retinopathy Photography
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.10.3 Sample Protocol 3
- •2.10.3.1 Diabetic Retinopathy Photography Review
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.11 Technical Requirements
- •2.11.1 Connectivity
- •2.11.2 Resolution
- •2.11.3 Color
- •2.11.4 Stereopsis
- •2.11.5 Compression
- •2.11.6 Enhancement
- •2.11.7 Pupil Dilation
- •2.11.8 Early California Telemedicine Initiatives Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •2.11.9 The American Indian Diabetes Teleophthalmology Grant Program
- •2.11.10 Central Valley EyePACS Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Project
- •2.12.1 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •2.12.1.1 ADA Guidelines Terms
- •2.12.1.2 Vitrectomy
- •References
- •3: Stereopsis and Teleophthalmology
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 History of Stereopsis and Stereopsis in Ophthalmology
- •3.3 Technology and Photography
- •3.3.3 Imaging Fields
- •3.3.4 Image Viewing Techniques
- •3.3.5 Image Compression
- •3.4 Stereoscopic Teleophthalmology Systems
- •3.4.1 University of Alberta
- •3.4.4 Joslin Vision Network
- •3.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Methods
- •4.2.1 Main Outcome Measures
- •4.3 Results
- •4.3.1 Retinal Video Recording Versus Retinal Still Photography
- •4.3.2 Video Compression Analysis
- •4.4 Discussion
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.1.1 Automated, Remote Image Analysis of Retinal Diseases
- •5.1.2 Telehealth
- •5.2 Design Requirements
- •5.2.1 Telehealth Network Architecture
- •5.2.2 Work Flow
- •5.2.3 Performance Evaluation of the Network
- •5.3 Automated Image Analysis Overview
- •5.3.1 Quality Assessment Module
- •5.3.2 Vascular Tree Segmentation
- •5.3.3 Quality Evaluation
- •5.4 Anatomic Structure Segmentation
- •5.4.1 Optic Nerve Detection
- •5.4.2 Macula
- •5.4.3 Lesion Segmentation
- •5.4.4 Lesion Population Description
- •5.4.5 Image Query
- •5.5 Summary
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.3 Optical Coherence Tomography to Detect Leakage
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Patients and Methods
- •7.2.1 Participants
- •7.2.2 Methods
- •7.2.3 Statistics
- •7.3 Results
- •7.3.1 Reliability of Image Evaluation
- •7.3.2 Prevalence of Glaucomatous Optic Nerve Atrophy
- •7.4 Discussion
- •7.5 Perspectives
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.1.2 Homology Between Retinal and Systemic Microvasculature
- •8.1.3 Need for More Precise CVD Risk Prediction
- •8.2.1 Retinal Microvascular Signs
- •8.2.2 Retinal Vessel Biometry
- •8.2.3 Newer Retinal Imaging for Morphologic Features of Retinal Vasculature
- •8.3 Associations of Retinal Imaging and CVD Risk
- •8.3.1.1 Risk of Pre-clinical CVD
- •8.3.1.2 Risk of Stroke
- •8.3.1.3 Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
- •8.3.2.1 Risk of Hypertension
- •8.3.2.2 Risk of Stroke
- •8.3.2.3 Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
- •8.3.2.4 Risk of Peripheral Artery Disease
- •8.3.3 Newer Morphologic Features of Retinal Vasculature
- •8.4 Retinal Imaging and Its Potential as a Tool for CVD Risk Prediction
- •References
- •9.1 Alzheimer’s Disease
- •9.2 Treatments
- •9.3 Diagnosis
- •9.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.1.1 Stroke
- •10.1.2 Heart Disease
- •10.1.3 Arteriovenous Ratio
- •10.2 Purpose
- •10.3 Method
- •10.3.1 Medical Approach
- •10.3.2 Technical Approach
- •10.3.3 Output of Medical Data
- •10.4 Patients
- •10.5 Results
- •10.5.1 Medical History
- •10.5.2 Telemedical Evaluation of Retinal Vessels
- •10.5.2.1 Prevalence of Retinal Microangiopathy
- •10.5.2.2 Arteriovenous Ratio
- •10.5.2.3 PROCAM-Index
- •10.6 Discussion and Perceptive
- •10.6.1 Estimation of “Stroke Risk” Estimated by the Stage of Retinal Microangiopathy
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 System Requirements
- •11.3 Fundus Camera
- •11.4 Imaging Procedure
- •11.4.1 Reading Center Procedure
- •11.5 Detection of Macular Edema
- •11.6 Implementation
- •11.7 Unreadable Images
- •11.7.1 Impact on Overall Diabetic Retinopathy Assessment Rates
- •11.7.2 Compliance with Recommendations
- •11.7.3 Challenges
- •11.7.4 Summary
- •References
- •12.1 Screening
- •12.2 Background
- •12.3 Historical Perspective in England
- •12.4 Methodology
- •12.4.1 The Aim of the Programme
- •12.5 Systematic DR Screening
- •12.6 Cameras for Use in the English Screening Programme
- •12.7 Software for Use in the English Screening Programme
- •12.9 Implementation in England
- •12.11 Quality Assurance
- •12.12 The Development of External Quality Assurance in the English Screening Programme
- •12.13 Information Technology (IT) Developments for the English Screening Programme
- •12.14 Dataset Development
- •12.15 The Development of External Quality Assurance Test Set for the English Screening Programme
- •12.16 Failsafe
- •12.17 The Epidemic of Diabetes
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 Burden of Diabetes and Diabetic Retinopathy in India
- •13.3 Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Models
- •13.4 Need for Telescreening
- •13.5 Guidelines for Telescreening
- •13.6 ATA Categories of DR Telescreening Validation
- •13.7 Yield of Diabetic Retinopathy in a Telescreening Model
- •13.8 How Are Images Transferred
- •13.10 How Many Fields Are Enough for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •13.11 Is Mydriasis Needed While Using Nonmydriatic Camera?
- •13.12 Validation Studies on Telescreening
- •13.12.1 Accuracy of Telescreening
- •13.12.2 Patient Satisfaction in Telescreening
- •13.12.3 Cost Effectivity
- •13.12.4 Telescreening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Our Experience
- •13.13 Future of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Methods
- •14.3 Discussion
- •14.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 Description of the EADRSI
- •15.5 State Support of Screening in the Safety Net
- •15.7 Screening Economics for Providers
- •15.8 Patient Sensitivity to Fees
- •15.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Setting Up the New Screening Model
- •16.2.1 Phase 1: Training
- •16.2.2 Phase 2: Evaluation of Agreement
- •16.2.3 Phase 3: Implementation of the Screening Model
- •16.3 Technologic Requirements
- •16.3.1 Data Management
- •16.3.2 Data Models
- •16.3.2.1 Data Scheme for Patient-Related Information
- •16.3.2.2 Data Scheme for Images
- •Fundus Camera VISUCAM Pro NM
- •PACS Server
- •ClearCanvas DICOM Visualizer
- •16.4 Results
- •16.4.1 Phase 2: Agreement Evaluation
- •16.4.2 Phase 3: Implementation of the Screening Model
- •16.5 Discussion
- •16.5.1 Evaluation of the Screening Model
- •16.5.2 Prevalence of DR
- •16.5.3 Quality Evaluation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1.3 Examination and Treatment
- •17.1.4 Limitations of Current Care
- •17.2 Telemedicine and ROP
- •17.2.2 Accuracy and Reliability of Telemedicine for ROP Diagnosis
- •17.2.3 Operational ROP Telemedicine Systems
- •17.2.4 Potential Barriers
- •17.3 Closing Remarks
- •17.3.1 Future Directions
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Neonatal Stress and Pain
- •18.3 ROP Screening Technique
- •18.4 Effect of Different Examination Techniques on Stress
- •18.5 Future of Retinal Imaging in Babies
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 History of the Program
- •19.3 Telehealth Technologies
- •19.4 Impact of the Program
- •Selected References
- •Preamble
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •The Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS)
- •Mission
- •Vision
- •Goals
- •Guiding Principles
- •Ethics
- •Clinical Validation
- •Category 1
- •Category 2
- •Category 3
- •Category 4
- •Communication
- •Medical Care Supervision
- •Patient Care Coordinator
- •Image Acquisition
- •Image Review and Evaluation
- •Information Systems
- •Interoperability
- •Image Acquisition
- •Compression
- •Data Communication and Transmission
- •Computer Display
- •Archiving and Retrieval
- •Security
- •Reliability and Redundancy
- •Documentation
- •Image Analysis
- •Legal Requirements
- •Facility Accreditation
- •Privileging and Credentialing
- •Stark Act and Self-referrals
- •State Medical Practice Acts/Licensure
- •Tort Liability
- •Duty
- •Standards of Care
- •Consent
- •Quality Control
- •Operations
- •Customer Support
- •Originating Site
- •Transmission
- •Distant Site
- •Financial Factors
- •Reimbursement
- •Grants
- •Federal Programs
- •Other Financial Factors
- •Equipment Cost
- •Summary
- •Abbreviations
- •Appendices
- •Appendix A: Interoperability
- •Appendix B: DICOM Metadata
- •Appendix C: Computer-Aided Detection
- •Appendix D: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- •Appendix F: Quality Control
- •Appendix H: Customer Support
- •Level 1
- •Level 2
- •Level 3
- •Appendix I: Reimbursement
- •Medicare
- •Medicaid
- •Commercial Insurance Carrier Reimbursement
- •Other Financial Factors
- •Disease Prevention
- •Resource Utilization
- •American Telemedicine Association’s Telehealth Practice Recommendations for Diabetic Retinopathy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Contributors
- •Second Edition
- •First Edition
- •Index
2 Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Practice Guide |
17 |
|
|
2.9.5A Note to CEOs, Operations Directors, and Clinic Managers
There are a few key ways that administrators can ensure a successful diabetic retinopathy screening program:
1.Communicate your support for the program at its inception and on an ongoing basis – your buy-in is absolutely essential in motivating the clinic staff. Ask for updates at staff meetings and promote the clinic’s goals, milestones, and successes.
2.Take a team approach to integrating screening into clinic workflow, enlisting the support of case managers, providers, photographers, and support staff. This may require the flexibility to accept walk-in appointments for people who were not aware at the time of making their appointment that they should be having retinopathy exams.
3.Emphasize the transition to a primary care (vs. specialty care) approach to diabetic eye health. Make sure that everyone at the clinic understands that screening is part of every diabetic’s care management program at the normal site of care, not something performed only by specialists.
4.Embrace telemedicine as a new model of care, communicate with IT professionals to ensure their support, and educate your clinic team about the key benefits of this approach, including speed of service, ease of process, lower costs, and better patient care.
5.Provide training, support, and recognition for staff to fit retinopathy screening into a comprehensive diabetes management plan. Make sure that participation in the program is reflected in performance measures.
2.10Policies and Procedures
The success of a diabetic retinopathy screening program can be measured by the percentage of diabetic patients who receive annual retinal examinations. Close attention to identifying diabetic patients who have not had a retinal
examination within 1 year will ensure that all patients will receive appropriate care. The following are recommendations about identifying patients for retinal screening that have proven effective to ensuring a high level of compliance with yearly retinal exams:
•Identify and screen diabetic patients without requiring a referral from the primary care provider. Providers are often very busy and will neglect to initiate the referral for screening. Diabetic registries or electronic medical records are often effective in identifying patients that need DRS.
•Screen all diabetic patients regardless of previous eye exams. Patients often report having had a regular eye exam, but a report of the findings is not available in the patient record. Patients are sometimes mistaken when they receive a simple eye examination for eyeglasses, thinking that a thorough view of the retina was performed.
•Closely follow patients that fail the screening and are referred for retinal treatment. Diabetic retinopathy is often asymptomatic, even in the late stages, and patients will often neglect to obtain treatment. It is incumbent upon the primary care staff, as well as the retinal consultants, to ensure that the patient actually receives proper treatment.
Three sample protocols follow.
2.10.1 Sample Protocol 1
2.10.1.1Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Services
Title: Procedure for diabetic retinopathy screening services (DRS)
Department Diabetes care |
Effective |
June 28, |
facilities |
date |
2005 |
Campus |
Date revised |
|
Unit |
Next |
|
|
scheduled |
|
|
review |
|
Manual |
Author |
|
Replaces the following |
Responsible |
|
policies: |
person |
|
18 |
J. Cuadros and C. Martin |
|
|
Policy
1.All appropriate consents must be obtained for diabetic retinopathy screening services.
2.All patients must be referred by the primary care physician (PCP) for DRS services based on the following guidelines:
(a)Diagnosed diabetic patients who have not had a retinal exam within the last year
(b)Completed pinhole test (visual acuity)
(c) Has recent lab results (within the last 6 months), including cholesterol, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1C
3.All appropriate documentation must be sent with the referral prior to the DRS services appointment.
4.All photographers providing DRS services must complete diabetic retinopathy screening photography training and complete ten satisfactory sets of images prior to providing DRS patient services.
Background
According to the American Diabetes Association, up to 21% of people with type 2 diabetes have retinopathy when they are first diagnosed with diabetes, and most will eventually develop some degree of retinopathy. Diabetes is responsible for 8% of legal blindness, making it the leading cause of new cases of blindness in adults 20–74 years of age. Through the findings of the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the CDC reports that each year, 12,000–24,000 people in this country become blind because of diabetic eye disease. Regular eye exams and timely treatment could prevent up to 90% of diabetes-related blindness. However, only 60% of people with diabetes receive annual dilated eye exams as recommended by the American Diabetes Association guidelines. Some studies have also indicated that preventive ophthalmic surveillance of high-risk diabetic individuals is even worse in urban underserved communities (Flowers et al. 2001).
Seven out of every 100 people in California are estimated to have diabetes, a 2.3 per <<per here means for each>> 100 people increase from 1994. African American, Hispanic, American Indian, and Alaska Native adults are about two to three times more likely than White adults to have
diabetes. It is estimated that 15% of adults American Indian/Alaska Native has diabetes, 13% of African American, 10% of Latinos, and nearly 8% of Whites. The prevalence of diabetes has increased steadily over the past 20 years, most notably among African Americans. Recent increases have also occurred among Latinos (CDC).
Dilated comprehensive eye examinations have been demonstrated to be of great potential benefit for diabetic retinopathy. However, national studies indicating that only 60% of diabetics actually undergo annual dilated examinations and urban underserved communities exhibiting even worse numbers have driven diabetic retinopathy screening models via digital fundus photography into the forefront of diabetes management.
With the introduction of digital fundus cameras, high-capacity computers, and the internet, the medical and financial implications of a telemedicine retinopathy screening model have been explored in the past decade. DRS, however, is not a substitute for regular comprehensive eye examinations.
Procedure
1.Patients may be appointed for DRS services for same-day appointments or for future appointments when same-day appointments are not available.
2.The photographer(s) will follow steps in image capture as outlined in EyePACS DRS Photography Manual.
3.Three standard fields and fundus reflex photographs will be captured:
(a)Field 1M – disc
(b)Field M – macula
(c)Field 3M – temporal to macula
4.Documentation of the service will be inserted in the patient chart by photographer.
5.All images are transmitted via Internet to the EyePACS image server at UC Berkeley.
6.All pictures are stored for transmission for review and consulted by credentialed UC Berkeley reviewers. Reports of the retinal screening cases will be appended to digital case presentation usually within 1 h but not more than 5 days after image capture.
