Skip to main content
Cambridge University Press - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Cambridge University Press - PMC COVID-19 Collection
letter
. 2020 Jul 20:1–2. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.344

COVID-19 and ophthalmology: An underappreciated occupational hazard

Anadi Khatri 1,, Muna Kharel 2, Babu Dhanendra Chaurasiya 3, Ashma KC 4, Bal Kumar Khatri 5
PMCID: PMC7403744  PMID: 32684187

Letter to the Editor—We read the article “COVID-19 and ophthalmology: an underappreciated occupational hazard” by Kuo and O’Brien1 with great interest. They have described the challenges faced by eye care personnel during this pandemic very well in a systematic manner. We would like to add few of our own experiences.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) has become the gold standard during the COVID-19 pandemic for prevention of infection. Although it has its advantages, many problems may arise in terms of comfort and ease in certain circumstances. Currently, with much of the primary focus on infection prevention, these may often be overlooked. In the long term, these difficulties may hamper the performance of healthcare workers like ophthalmologists, whose work demands high precision. As lockdowns are easing and services are resuming, we present our report from a pilot study we conducted in Nepal among ophthalmologists on this matter. We conducted a small survey among 24 ophthalmologists who had recently (<1 week) returned to work using PPE. They were asked to describe issues related to discomfort or difficulty in performing regular tasks when using PPE. They were also asked to grade on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 least likely to 5 most likely) the issues they considered were most troubling (Table 1).

Table 1.

Problems Related to Discomfort and Difficulty in Performing Regular Examination for Ophthalmologists With Use of Personal Protective Equipmenta

Problems Frequency, No. (%) Problem Scale (Mode values)
Thermal discomfort/sweating 18 (75) 3
Muffled voice (unable to understand) 22 (91.6) 3
Foggingb 19 (79.1) 5
Difficulty in using slit lamps 10 (41.6) 4
Difficulty in focusing using face shields 17 (70.8) 5
Unsure of DIY protectives/shields 15 (62.5) 4
a

Total participants = 24.

b

14 of the 24 participants were spectacle users; all complained of fogging.

Returning to work after weeks of furlough only to suddenly and be enshrouded in PPE is a new challenge for many of us. Although it has become a norm, the evidence is already clear that many ophthalmologists and eye care professionals are having difficulties related to PPE use.2 Although the evidence is concrete on infection prevention with its use,3 our results suggest that PPE may need to be redesigned and customized to best fit the activity or the demands of individual workers. Problems like fogging, sweating, and difficulty focusing are unacceptable not only in ophthalmological but many other faculties related to high-precision procedures. With more evidence that COVID-19 is here to stay,4 these problems will continue to hinder efforts to restart or continue services.

Physical distancing often tops the list and is the most prioritized advise during this pandemic. However, due to the nature of examination, it is practically impossible for eye care professionals to adopt it.1,5 In addition to PPE, improvised, low-tech, “Do it yourself” (DIY) protective devices are also being widely used.6 Although this may be an advantage because much of the “design for the greatest ease of use” would have already been already improvised, many such DIY efforts remain unproven in terms of the actual protection they provide. Until tested for its “quantifiable” protection value, physicians may fall into the trap of “pseudo” protection and confidence in their use.

Collaboration of physicians with the manufacturers, laboratories, and testing facilities are of utmost importance to devise such protective devices. Efforts focused on extensive testing of these materials and designs to make them more protective and comfortable are necessary immediately if we are to continue serving with confidence in this era of “the new normal.”

Acknowledgments

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

  • 1.Kuo I, O’Brien T. COVID-19 and ophthalmology: an underappreciated occupational hazard. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020. May 15 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Minocha A, Sim SY, Than J, Vakros G. Survey of ophthalmology practitioners in A&E on current COVID-19 guidance at three major UK eye hospitals. Eye (Lond) 2020;34:1243–1245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ortega R, Gonzalez M, Nozari A, Canelli R. Personal protective equipment and COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020. May 19;382(26):e105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMvcm2014809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Barnes M, Sax PE. Challenges of “return to work” in an ongoing pandemic. N Engl J Med 2020. Jun 18 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2019953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sadhu S, Agrawal R, Pyare R, et al. COVID-19: limiting the risks for eye care professionals. Ocular Immunol Inflam 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1755442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Greig PR, Carvalho C, El-Boghdadly K, Ramessur S. Safety testing improvised COVID-19 personal protective equipment based on a modified full-face snorkel mask. Anaesthesia 2020;75:970–971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES