Abstract

Aim: To describe barriers to implementation of diabetic retinopathy (DR) teleretinal screening programs and artificial intelligence (AI) integration at the University of California (UC).
Methods: Institutional representatives from UC Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Irvine, and Davis were surveyed for the year of their program's initiation, active status at the time of survey (December 2021), number of primary care clinics involved, screening image quality, types of eye providers, image interpretation turnaround time, and billing codes used. Representatives were asked to rate perceptions toward barriers to teleretinal DR screening and AI implementation using a 5-point Likert scale.
Results: Four UC campuses had active DR teleretinal screening programs at the time of survey and screened between 246 and 2,123 patients at 1–6 clinics per campus. Sites reported variation between poor-quality photos (<5% to 15%) and average image interpretation time (1–5 days). Patient education, resource availability, and infrastructural support were identified as barriers to DR teleretinal screening. Cost and integration into existing technology infrastructures were identified as barriers to AI integration in DR screening.
Conclusions: Despite the potential to increase access to care, there remain several barriers to widespread implementation of DR teleretinal screening. More research is needed to develop best practices to overcome these barriers.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

REFERENCES

1. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2018;14(2):88–98.
2. Ogurtsova K, Guariguata L, Barengo NC, et al. IDF diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of undiagnosed diabetes in adults for 2021. Diabetes Res Clin Pr 2022;183:109118.
3. Teo ZL, Tham YC, Yu M, et al. Global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and projection of burden through 2045: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2021;128(11):1580–1591.
4. Flaxel CJ, Adelman RA, Bailey ST, et al. Diabetic Retinopathy Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2020;127(1):P66–P145.
5. Solomon SD, Chew E, Duh EJ, et al. Diabetic retinopathy: A position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2017;40(3):412–418.
6. Quality ID#117 (NQF0055): Diabetes: Eye Exam. Available from: https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/QPP_quality_measure_specifications/CQM-Measures/2020_Measure_117_MIPSCQM.pdf [Last accessed: April 15, 2022].
7. Bresnick G, Cuadros JA, Khan M, et al. Adherence to ophthalmology referral, treatment and follow-up after diabetic retinopathy screening in the primary care setting. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020;8(1):e001154.
8. Kuo J, Liu JC, Gibson E, et al. Factors associated with adherence to screening guidelines for diabetic retinopathy among low-income metropolitan patients. Mo Med 2020;117(3):258–264.
9. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Shiyanbola OO, et al. Factors influencing patient adherence with diabetic eye screening in rural communities: A qualitative study. PLoS One 2018;13(11):e0206742.
10. Misra A, Bachmann MO, Greenwood RH, et al. Trends in yield and effects of screening intervals during 17 years of a large UK community-based diabetic retinopathy screening programme. Diabet Med 2009;26(10):1040–1047.
11. Walton OB IV, Garoon RB, Weng CY, et al. Evaluation of automated teleretinal screening program for diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134(2):204–209.
12. Afshar AR, Oldenburg CE, Stewart JM. A novel hybrid fixed and mobile ultra-widefield imaging program for diabetic teleretinopathy screening. Ophthalmol Retina 2019;3(7):576–579.
13. Khou V, Khan MA, Jiang IW, et al. Evaluation of the initial implementation of a nationwide diabetic retinopathy screening programme in primary care: A multimethod study. BMJ Open 2021;11(8):e044805.
14. Thomas EE, Haydon HM, Mehrotra A, et al. Building on the momentum: Sustaining telehealth beyond COVID-19. J Telemed Telecare 2022;28(4):301–308.
15. Conlin PR, Fisch BM, Orcutt JC, et al. Framework for a national teleretinal imaging program to screen for diabetic retinopathy in Veterans Health Administration patients. J Rehabil Res Dev 2006;43(6):741–748.
16. Daskivich LP, Vasquez C, Martinez C Jr, et al. Implementation and Evaluation of a Large-Scale Teleretinal Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177(5):642–649.
17. Mamillapalli CK, Prentice JR, Garg AK, et al. Implementation and challenges unique to teleretinal diabetic retinal screening (TDRS) in a private practice setting in the United States. J Clin Transl Endocrinol 2020;19:100214.
18. Autonomous diabetic retinopathy screening system gains FDA approval. 2020. Available from: https://www.aao.org/headline/autonomous-diabetic-retinopathy-screening-system-g [Last accessed: April 15, 2022].
19. Office of the Commissioner. FDA permits marketing of artificial intelligence-based device to detect certain diabetes-related eye problems. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-permits-marketing-artificial-intelligence-based-device-detect-certain-diabetes-related-eye [Last accessed: April 15, 2022].
20. Gunasekeran DV, Ting DSW, Tan GSW, Wong TY. Artificial intelligence for diabetic retinopathy screening, prediction and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2020;31(5):357–365.
21. Grzybowski A, Brona P. Analysis and comparison of two artificial intelligence diabetic retinopathy screening algorithms in a pilot study: IDx-DR and Retinalyze. J Clin Med Res 2021;10(11):2352.
22. van der Heijden AA, Abramoff MD, Verbraak F, et al. Validation of automated screening for referable diabetic retinopathy with the IDx-DR device in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System. Acta Ophthalmol 2018;96(1):63.
23. Baxter S, Quackenbush Q, Cerda J, et al. Implementing clinical informatics tools for primary care-based diabetic retinopathy screening. Am J Manag Care 2022;28(10):e355–e362.
24. Ellis MP, Bacorn C, Luu KY, et al. Cost analysis of teleophthalmology screening for diabetic retinopathy using teleophthalmology billing codes. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2020;51(5):S26–S34.
25. Lee SC, Alber S, Lieng MK, et al. Teleophthalmology using remote retinal imaging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health 2023;29(1):81–86;
26. Connolly SL, Miller CJ, Gifford AL, Charness ME. Perceptions and use of telehealth among mental health, primary, and specialty care clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5(6):e2216401.
27. Fish A, George S, Terrien E, et al. Workflow concerns and workarounds of readers in an urban safety net teleretinal screening study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011;2011:417–426.
28. Ogunyemi O, George S, Patty L, et al. Teleretinal screening for diabetic retinopathy in six Los Angeles urban safety-net clinics: Final study results. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2013;2013:1082–1088.
29. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; CY 2022 Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment Policies; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Provider Enrollment Regulation Updates; and Provider and Supplier Prepayment and Post-Payment Medical Review Requirements. Fed Regist 2021;86:64996–66031.
30. Lee SC, Lieng MK, Alber S, et al. Trends in remote retinal imaging utilization and payments in the United States. Ophthalmology 2022;129(3):354–357.
31. Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Comans TA, et al. Determining if telehealth can reduce health system costs: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(10):e17298.
32. Bastos de Carvalho A, Ware SL, Lei F, et al. Implementation and sustainment of a statewide telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening network for federally designated safety-net clinics. PLoS One 2020;15(11):e0241767.
33. Payne PRO, Wilcox AB, Embi PJ, Longhurst CA. Better together: Integrating biomedical informatics and healthcare IT operations to create a learning health system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Learn Health Syst 2022;6(2):e10309.
34. Heydon P, Egan C, Bolter L, et al. Prospective evaluation of an artificial intelligence-enabled algorithm for automated diabetic retinopathy screening of 30 000 patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2021;105(5):723–728.
35. Ipp E, Liljenquist D, Bode B, et al. Pivotal evaluation of an artificial intelligence system for autonomous detection of referrable and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(11):e2134254.
36. Mathenge W, Whitestone N, Nkurikiye J, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence assessment of diabetic retinopathy on referral service uptake in a low resource setting: The RAIDERS randomized trial. Ophthalmol Sci 2022;2(4):100168.
37. Lehne M, Sass J, Essenwanger A, et al. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2:79.
38. Evans NG, Wenner DM, Cohen IG, et al. Emerging ethical considerations for the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology. Ophthalmol Sci 2022;2(2):100141.
39. Wolf RM, Channa R, Abramoff MD, Lehmann HP. Cost-effectiveness of autonomous point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening for pediatric patients with diabetes. JAMA Ophthalmol 2020;138(10):1063–1069.
40. Al-Khaled T, Valikodath N, Cole E, et al. Evaluation of physician perspectives of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2020;61(7):2023.
41. Laï MC, Brian M, Mamzer MF. Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. J Transl Med 2020;18(1):14.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Telemedicine and e-Health
Telemedicine and e-Health
Volume 29Issue Number 12December 2023
Pages: 1810 - 1818
PubMed: 37256712

History

Published online: 8 December 2023
Published in print: December 2023
Published ahead of print: 30 May 2023
Accepted: 19 December 2022
Revision received: 17 December 2022
Received: 17 November 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

    Authors

    Affiliations

    Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Mark C. Lin, MD
    Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, California, USA.
    Christine Thorne, MD
    Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Kristen Kulasa, MD
    Department of Endocrinology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Jay Stewart, MD
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
    Department of Ophthalmology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
    Eric Nudleman, MD, PhD
    Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Matthew Freeby, MD
    Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
    Maria A. Han, MD, MS, MBA
    Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
    Sally L. Baxter, MD, MSc [email protected]
    Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
    Health Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.

    Notes

    Address correspondence to: Sally L. Baxter, MD, MSc, Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, 9415 Campus Point Drive, MC0946, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA [email protected]

    Disclosure Statement

    S.L.B. has none specifically related to this study; other financial disclosures: equipment from Optomed and consulting fees from voxelcloud.io. G.Y. is consultant for Abbvie, Adverum, Alimera, Anlong, Bausch & Lomb, Cholgene, Clearside, Endogena, Genentech, Gyroscope, Intergalactic, Iridex, NGM Bio, Regeneron, Thea, Topcon, and Zeiss. J.S. has none related to this study; other: Merck. M.A.H. has none. M.F. received research grant Novo Nordisk.

    Funding Information

    Sally Baxter is supported by NIH Grant DP5OD29610 (Bethesda, MD, USA) and an unrestricted departmental grant from Research to Prevent Blindness (New York, NY, USA). Glenn Yiu is supported by NIH Grants R01 EY032238, R34 EY031719, and BrightFocus Foundation. M.F. is supported by NIH Grants NIH 1R56DE030469-01, 1RO1NR017190-01A1, and 1RO1DK116719-01A1.

    Metrics & Citations

    Metrics

    Citations

    Export citation

    Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

    View Options

    Get Access

    Access content

    To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

    Society Access

    If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

    Restore your content access

    Enter your email address to restore your content access:

    Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

    View options

    PDF/EPUB

    View PDF/ePub

    Full Text

    View Full Text

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Copy the content Link

    Share on social media

    Back to Top