Damento, Gena M.

Background: Eight Global Ophthalmology (GO) fellowship programs are available in the United States, and more than 30 U.S. GO fellows are now alumni. There are no standardized learning objectives for these programs, and fellows’ experiences vary widely between institutions. Purpose: To survey GO fellowship program directors in the United States to elucidate differences in learning objectives, duration of time abroad, funding sources, and other differences between GO fellowships. Methods: All program directors at all institutions with current GO fellowship programs in the United States were sent a 25-question questionnaire via email from October through December 2022. The questionnaire included distinct domains regarding the GO fellowship experience, care delivery, didactics, and best practices. Most questionnaire items were quantitative; 3 were qualitative. Responses to the quantitative and qualitative questions items were summarized descriptively. Results: All 10 program directors from the 8 GO fellowship programs that were current at the time of the survey participated. GO fellowship positions at most (88%) institutions were funded, in part, by the billing of care services provided by the fellows, with 50% of programs receiving supplemental funding from donations and 25% from nongovernmental organizations. Non-GO duties at the program home institutions constituted 29.5% of the time spent during the fellowships, on average. Policy advocacy occupies 2.3% of fellowship time, on average. Specific didactic topics covered in the GO programs and director perspectives on the pragmatic best practices for GO outreach varied considerably; however, inclusion of at least some public health topics and ethics appeared to be consistent among all of the programs. Conclusions: These findings provide insights into the landscape of GO fellowship programs in the United States, highlighting variations in funding, formal educational opportunities, and the allocation of time fellows spent working at the program home institution. Establishing standardized core competencies for fellows is recommended.

Purpose: To determine the effect of a protocol for a new physician-led, team-based glaucoma care model implemented in 2008 at Mayo Clinic’s campus in Rochester, Minnesota (MCR), to increase conformance with the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines for treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma. Methods: Records of 591 patients with newly diagnosed glaucoma were assessed retrospectively for the completion of 9 AAO Preferred Practice Pattern recommended metrics including measured corneal thickness, intraocular pressure (IOP), cup to disk ratio, visual acuity, recorded IOP target, gonioscopy, fundus photos, ocular coherence tomography, and visual field in the 3 years before and 3 years after protocol implementation. Treatment by the glaucoma care team at MCR was compared with treatment at a community-based general ophthalmology practice and with a group of comprehensive ophthalmologists at MCR without team care, which served as controls. Results: Adherence to AAO recommendations increased for the documentation of target IOP (+24%, 42.6% to 66.7%; P=0.007), gonioscopy (+27%, 66.7% to 93.3%; P≤0.001), fundus photos (+29%, 44.4% to 73.3%; P≤0.001), and ocular coherence tomography (+20%, 48.1% to 68.0%; P=0.02) after protocol initiation. No change in pattern of testing occurred in the control groups without team care during the same time period. Type and severity of glaucoma were similar between MCR and community practice. Conclusions: An increase in compliance with AAO guidelines was found after implementation of our protocol for a physician-led, team-based care model to standardize glaucoma care among providers.