Expanding the scope of an eConsult service: acceptability and feasibility of an optometry–ophthalmology pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of connecting optometrists to ophthalmologists on an eConsult service. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of utilization data and an anonymous survey. PARTICIPANTS: All eConsult cases sent by optometrists between March 2019 and February 2020 (utilization data); optometrists and ophthalmologists participating in the eConsult Vision Pilot Project (survey). METHODS: Utilization data for the study period were collected automatically and underwent descriptive analysis. Participating optometrists and ophthalmologists received an email invitation to a survey assessing the project. RESULTS: Thirteen optometrists from 5 clinics in the southeast region and 7 ophthalmologists were recruited to participate in the pilot project. Optometrists sent 109 eConsults in a 13-month period, representing 33% of all cases submitted to ophthalmology through the eConsult service provincially (March 2019-March 2020). Sixty-eight percent of respondents to an anonymous online survey valued the recruitment and engagement of eye care professionals from the same health region. The influence of the eConsult service was reported to have a "somewhat positive" (27%) to "very positive" (50%) influence on the relationship between the two professional groups. CONCLUSION: The eConsult Vision Pilot Project fills a gap in service and provides an opportunity for patients to get access to specialty advice. We demonstrated that allowing optometrists to solicit specialist advice from ophthalmologists was acceptable and feasible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".