Orbit (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
Scope of practice of oculofacial plastic and reconstructive surgeons: a public perception survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mukit Fabliha A, Kim Emily Y, Hilliard Grant, Pilkinton Sophie, Walker Marc E, Wilson Matthew W, Fowler Brian T
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the public's perception of the scope of practice for oculofacial plastic and reconstructive surgeons (OFPRS).
METHODS: A 49-question survey was distributed by QualtricsⓇ to a panel similar to the US demographic composition. Responses collected underwent bivariate statistical analysis.
RESULT: A total of 530 responses were obtained, with most respondents being white, female, over the age of 35, from the Midwest, and with at least a college education or above. Most respondents did not think ophthalmologists or optometrists were surgeons, and only 158 people (29.8%) knew the primary specialty of OFPRS was ophthalmology. Board certification was preferred by 98.87% of respondents, and 95.28% preferred ASOPRS-trained OFPRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the gap in knowledge about OFPRS as a field, the qualifications and training required, and the scope of practice. Notably, even for OFPRS-specific procedures, PRS remained the leading subspecialist chosen for interventions such as orbital decompression (58.5% vs. 71.5%), orbital reconstruction (57.9% vs. 74.2%), enucleation/evisceration (48.1% vs. 53.4%), optic nerve-related surgery (39.8% vs. 43.4%), orbital cancer resection (42.8% vs. 46.8%), and tear duct surgery (41.9% vs. 52.5%). Additionally, most respondents did not feel that facial fillers, laser skin resurfacing, eyelid cancer removal, or cataract surgery were within the OFPRS scope of practice.
METHODS: A 49-question survey was distributed by QualtricsⓇ to a panel similar to the US demographic composition. Responses collected underwent bivariate statistical analysis.
RESULT: A total of 530 responses were obtained, with most respondents being white, female, over the age of 35, from the Midwest, and with at least a college education or above. Most respondents did not think ophthalmologists or optometrists were surgeons, and only 158 people (29.8%) knew the primary specialty of OFPRS was ophthalmology. Board certification was preferred by 98.87% of respondents, and 95.28% preferred ASOPRS-trained OFPRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the gap in knowledge about OFPRS as a field, the qualifications and training required, and the scope of practice. Notably, even for OFPRS-specific procedures, PRS remained the leading subspecialist chosen for interventions such as orbital decompression (58.5% vs. 71.5%), orbital reconstruction (57.9% vs. 74.2%), enucleation/evisceration (48.1% vs. 53.4%), optic nerve-related surgery (39.8% vs. 43.4%), orbital cancer resection (42.8% vs. 46.8%), and tear duct surgery (41.9% vs. 52.5%). Additionally, most respondents did not feel that facial fillers, laser skin resurfacing, eyelid cancer removal, or cataract surgery were within the OFPRS scope of practice.