Table 1.
Electronic VF data transfer survey results
| Q1. Institution | N (%) |
| University hospital | 33 (66) |
| Eye clinic (≤ 19 beds) | 9 (18) |
| Eye hospital (≥ 20 beds) | 5 (10) |
| General hospital | 3 (6) |
| Q2. Region in Japan | |
| Tokyo | 12 (24) |
| Kinki | 9 (18) |
| Hokuriku | 7 (14) |
| Kanto | 5 (10) |
| Tokai | 5 (10) |
| Chugoku-Shikoku | 5 (10) |
| Kyusyu | 4 (8) |
| Hokkaido-Tohoku | 3 (6) |
| Q3. Perimetry used | |
| Humphrey (Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Germany) | 50 (100) |
| Imo (Crewt Medical Systems, Japan) | 18 (36) |
| Kowa (Kowa, Japan) | 8 (16) |
| Octopus (Haag-Streit, Switzerland) | 4 (8) |
| Q4. VF progression analysis software used | |
| BeeFiles (BeeLine, Japan) | 32 (64) |
| Claio (Findex, Japan) | 12 (24) |
| Perimetry company-provided software (e.g., Guided Progression Analysis, Forum, …) | 6 (12) |
| Q5. When glaucoma patients are transferred (referred/referring), do you actively transfer patients’ electronic VF data in a format that allows progression analysis (not jpeg, pdf, or other data that do not allow progression analysis)? | |
| No (go to Q6, 7) | 40 (80) |
| Yes (go to Q8-11) | 10 (20) |
| Q6. Why are you not active in electronic VF data transfer? | |
| No support of data transfer by neighboring institutes | 26 (65) |
| No support of data transfer by own institute | 25 (63) |
| Takes time and effort | 13 (33) |
| Personal data protection | 6 (15) |
| Not required for diagnosis (printout is enough) | 4 (10) |
| Other reason | 4 (10) |
| Q7. Do you think it would be ideal to do electronic data transfer (if the environment is available)? | |
| Yes | 40 (100) |
| No | 0 (0) |
| Q8. What is your usual method of data transfer? | |
| USB flash memory | 10 (100) |
| Electric medical record network/cloud system | 4 (40) |
| Floppy disc | 3 (30) |
| Q9. For glaucoma patients, what percentage of referral letters from the referring institutes accompany electronic VF data in a format that allows for progression analysis from the beginning? | |
| < 25% | 7 (70) |
| 25%-50% | 2 (20) |
| 50%-75% | 0 (0) |
| ≥ 75% | 1 (10) |
| Q10. If the referral letter from the referring institute does not accompany electronic VF data in a format that allows for progression analysis, what percentage requests data transfer further? | |
| < 25% | 4 (40) |
| 25%-50% | 4 (40) |
| 50%-75% | 0 (0) |
| ≥ 75% | 2 (20) |
| Q11. Have you ever been rejected (or not responded to) a request to provide data to a referring institute? | |
| Never rejected (including never requested) | 4 (40) |
| Rejected because of "different perimetry equipment" | 6 (60) |
| Rejected because "we don't do data transfers" | 4 (40) |
| Rejected because "we don't know how to transfer data" | 4 (40) |
| Rejected because of "personal data protection" | 1 (10) |
| Rejected because of "no compensation/reimbursement" | 1 (10) |