Retrospective analysis highlights significant follow-up issues in incarcerated and immigration detention populations.
Background/Objectives Ophthalmic care for patients who are incarcerated or in immigration detention presents complex challenges for patients and providers. There remains a paucity of literature investigating ophthalmic care for these marginalised populations. We investigated the delivery of ophthalmic care in an academic health system to patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. Subjects/Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study and secondary analysis of electronic health record data for inpatient, outpatient, and surgical visits between 1 November 2018 and 30 September 2023 in an ophthalmology department at an academic medical centre in the United States for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. Attendance at outpatient clinic visits and follow-up based on ophthalmic subspecialty, loss to follow-up, delays in follow-up, and rates of ancillary testing were analysed. Results 1628 scheduled visits were extracted for 401 patients, of which 1084 were attended (2.7 ± 3.6 per patient) and 544 were cancelled or no-showed (1.4 ± 1.8 per patient). Patients attended 100 (68.5%) of cornea, 116 (64.4%) of glaucoma, 2 (28.6%) of neuro-ophthalmology, 139 (58.2%) oculoplastics, 9 (36.0%) of paediatrics/strabismus, and 109 (54.5%) of retina visits. Using a 2-week grace period for follow-up, 72 patients (40.9% with complete follow-up data) completed follow-up within 2 weeks. 229 patients (57.1%) were lost to follow-up at the end of the study period, which is consistent with data from previous reports on ophthalmic care at other centres for patients who were incarcerated. Conclusions Delays in care and visit attrition were substantial for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. More work is needed to quantify outcomes and address disparities in care for these marginalised communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wedekind et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: