PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8002832

Time parameters for glaucoma procedures.

Abstract

Changes in physician reimbursement and the practice environment have emphasized the importance of determining physician time for procedures and services. Forty-five percent of the members of the American Glaucoma Society responded to a mail survey of estimates of the length of time and number of visits for the preoperative, operative, and 90-day postoperative care for six common glaucoma procedures. Results suggest a significant underestimation of time for trabeculectomies exists in the original and new resource-based relative value scale work values. Further, 47% to 53% of surgeons hospitalize patients on at least the first postoperative day. There were no apparent time efficiencies between "high-" and "low-volume" respondents. Thus, careful attention should be paid to the accuracy of certain time estimates and the resulting work values in the resource-based relative value scale. Additional work in this and other areas may prove illuminating.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P P Lee, S Rao, S Azen, K L Linton, D S Minckler. 1994. Time parameters for glaucoma procedures.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1994.01090180053034

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Repeatability and reproducibility of optic disc measurement with the Zeiss 4-mirror contact lens.

BACKGROUND: A simple clinical quantitative method of optic disc diameter measurement using a 4-mirror gonioscope contact lens has been described recently. METHODS: Intraobserver and interobserver variations are assessed on 77 eyes of 41 patients. Of these eyes, 63 had refractive errors within 3 diopters of emmetropia. The disc was measured by projecting a slit beam of known height onto the disc. RESULTS: Intraobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 3.04% for observer 1 (experienced) and 4.76% for observer 2 (novice). The mean of the three measurements by the two observers was not significantly different (P=0.2318). For observer 1, the mean variance of the eyes with higher refractive errors did not differ significantly from the eyes with lower refractive errors. Interobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 4.52%. The measurements for the novice were slightly larger the smallest discs and slightly smaller for the largest discs (regression analysis P=0.0209). CONCLUSION: Repeatability and reproducibility for this method are comparable with other methods of measurement. Until experienced with the technique, the authors recommend that the mean of three readings is used.

Glaucoma