Improved Access and Cycle Time with an “In-House” Patient-Centered Teleglaucoma Program Versus Traditional In-Person Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare access time and cycle time between an "in-house" teleglaucoma program and in-person glaucoma consultation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective comparative study of 71 patients seen through the teleglaucoma program (eligible patients were glaucoma suspects or early-stage open-angle glaucoma) and 63 patients seen via a traditional in-person exam with a physician present. Access time was calculated as the time from the patient being referred to the date of a booked visit for either a teleglaucoma or in-person exam. Cycle time was defined as the time from registration until departure during the visit to the hospital; it was calculated for the subset of patients from each study group who completed activity logs on the day of their visit. RESULTS: The mean access time was significantly shorter for patients seen through teleglaucoma compared with in-person exam: 45±22 days (range, 13-121 days) (n=68) versus 88±47 days (range, 27-214 days) (n=63), respectively (p<0.0001). The cycle time was also reduced for patients seen through teleglaucoma, compared with in-person assessment: 78±20 min (range, 40-130 min) (n=39) versus 115±44 min (range, 51-216 min) (n=39), respectively (p<0.001). The mean percentage time spent in the waiting room was also significantly reduced for patients seen through teleglaucoma versus in-person assessments: 19±13% versus 41±24% (n=39), respectively (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Teleglaucoma improves access to care and is a more efficient way of managing glaucoma suspects and patients with early-stage glaucoma compared with in-person assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".