PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sajeesh Kumar

Publications and source records attributed to Sajeesh Kumar.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Remote ophthalmology services: cost comparison of telemedicine and alternative service delivery options.

We calculated the cost of an established tele-ophthalmology service, from a health-provider's perspective, and compared this with the cost of three other existing eye-care service delivery options. During a 12-month study period, 118 persons took part in the tele-ophthalmology consultations between a rural clinic located approximately 900 km from the Lions Eye Institute in Perth. The variable costs of tele-ophthalmology were 166.89 dollars(Australian dollars) per patient, and the alternatives cost 445.96 dollars, 271.48 dollars and 665.44 dollars per patient. Tele-ophthalmology incurred a set-up cost of 13,340 dollars. The threshold at which tele-ophthalmology became cheaper than any of the alternative options occurred at a workload of 128 patients. Tele-ophthalmology offers a viable alternative to conventional eye-care service in rural and remote areas.

Delivery of Health Care↗

Telemedicine-friendly, portable tonometers: an evaluation for intraocular pressure screening.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings from two portable, telemedicine-friendly tonometers for suitability in glaucoma screening. METHODS: 213 eyes of 107 consenting patients attending an eye clinic were tested with an I-care tonometer and a Pulsair-Easy Eye puff-air tonometer. Gold standard IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Effect of central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and refractive errors on IOP measurements were also analysed. RESULTS: The mean difference of IOP by GAT and both the portable tonometers was +/- 2.2 mmHg. The analysis indicates minimal difference between IOP readings of both the portable tonometers. The mean difference between two consecutive readings by I-care was 0.01 mmHg. Using 21 mmHg as a threshold for suspected glaucoma, both the portable digital tonometers reported a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of >95%. In the subjects studied, central corneal thickness had statistically significant influence on IOP measurements while refractive errors and anterior chamber depth had no significant influence on IOP measurements with any tonometry. CONCLUSION: The IOP readings by both portable tonometers are comparable and were within clinically acceptable range from GAT. These portable tonometers are useful tools for IOP screening.

Adult↗