{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,9]],"date-time":"2026-09-09T18:11:55Z","timestamp":1788977515777,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,6]],"date-time":"2014-05-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1399334400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,6]]},"abstract":"\n Purpose<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 The purpose of this paper is to determine the safety of substituting the first day post-operative review after routine cataract surgery (phacoemulsification) with a telephone survey. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 Prospective non-randomised cohort study. A standardised questionnaire of five common ocular symptoms (general condition, vision, eye pain, headache, nausea or vomiting) was administered by a trained nurse on the first post-operative day. The patients were reviewed in clinic two to 14 days later. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for complications (endophthalmitis, raised intra-ocular pressure, wound leaks and uveitis) requiring deviation from standard treatment. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Findings<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 Over 13 months, 256 eyes of 238 patients underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification by four consultant surgeons. Only one patient reported poor general condition, blurred vision and eye pain. She was subsequently found to have corneal oedema and raised intra-ocular pressure when recalled for an earlier review. Best corrected visual acuity better than 20\/40 was achieved in 80.5 per cent of patients. There were no other post-operative complications noted from medical records review. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Research limitations\/implications<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 Non-randomised nature, skewed surgical expertise, lack of a control group and patient experience data. In all, 22 patients (9.2 per cent) were also uncontactable for the telephone interview. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Practical implications<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 A nurse-administered telephone survey seemed to be a safe and effective alternative to first day post-operative review after routine phacoemulsification. The survey also enabled the detection of serious post-operative complications. The first day post-operative hospital visit may be safely substituted in a selected patient population with greater patient convenience achieved and liberation of clinic resources. <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Originality\/value<\/jats:title>\n \u2013 This is the first study which utilises a standardised questionnaire as a form of post-operative review in an Asian population.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/ijhcqa-11-2012-0120","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,6,10]],"date-time":"2014-06-10T14:33:49Z","timestamp":1402410829000},"page":"347-354","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":22,"title":["Evaluation of the use of a nurse-administered telephone questionnaire for post-operative cataract surgery review"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Petrina","family":"Tan","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Fong","family":"Yee Foo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Stephen","family":"C. Teoh","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hon","family":"Tym Wong","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ahmed, I.I.\n , \n Kranemann, C.\n , \n Chipman, M.\n and \n Malam, F.\n (2002), \u201cRevisiting early postoperative follow-up after phacoemulsification\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 100-108.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0886-3350(01)00994-4"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Alwitry, A.\n , \n Rotchford, A.\n and \n Gardner, I.\n (2006), \u201cFirst day review after uncomplicated phacoemulsification: is it necessary?\u201d, European Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 554-559.","DOI":"10.1177\/112067210601600409"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hatch, W.V.\n , \n Cernat, G.\n , \n Wong, D.\n , \n Devenyi, R.\n and \n Bell, C.M.\n (2009), \u201cRisk factors for acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: a population-based study\u201d, Ophthalmology, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 425-430.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2008.09.039"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kodjikian, L.\n , \n Salvanet-Bouccara, A.\n , \n Grillon, S.\n , \n Forestier, F.\n , \n Seegmuller, J.L.\n and \n Berdeaux, G.\n French Collaborative Study Group on Endophthalmitis (2009), \u201cPostcataract acute endophthalmitis in France: national prospective survey\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 89-97.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrs.2008.10.018"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Levkovitch-Verbin, H.\n , \n Habot-Wilner, Z.\n , \n Burla, N.\n , \n Melamed, S.\n , \n Goldenfeld, M.\n , \n Bar-Sela, S.M.\n and \n Sachs, D.\n (2008), \u201cIntraocular pressure elevation within the first 24 hours after cataract surgery in patients with glaucoma or exfoliation syndrome\u201d, Ophthalmology, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 104-108.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2007.03.058"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mandal, K.\n , \n Dodds, S.G.\n , \n Hildreth, A.\n , \n Fraser, S.G.\n and \n Steel, D.H.\n (2004), \u201cComparative study of first-day postoperative cataract review methods\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1966-1971.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrs.2004.01.037"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Minassian, D.C.\n , \n Rosen, P.\n , \n Dart, J.K.\n , \n Reidy, A.\n , \n Desai, P.\n , \n Sidhu, M.\n , \n Kaushal, S.\n and \n Wingate, N.M.\n (2001), \u201cExtracapsular cataract extraction compared with small incision surgery by phacoemulsification: a randomised trial\u201d, The British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 85 No. 7, pp. 822-829.","DOI":"10.1136\/bjo.85.7.822"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b8","unstructured":"Radius, R.L.\n and \n Maumenee, A.E.\n (1977), \u201cVisual field changes following acute elevation of intraocular pressure\u201d, Transactions. Section on Ophthalmology. American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 61-68."},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Saeed, A.\n , \n Guerin, M.\n , \n Khan, I.\n , \n Keane, P.\n , \n Stack, J.\n , \n Hayes, P.\n , \n Tormey, P.\n , \n Mullhern, M.\n and \n Beatty, S.\n (2007), \u201cDeferral of first review after uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery until 2 weeks: randomized controlled study\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1591-1596.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrs.2007.05.022"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tan, C.S.\n , \n Wong, H.K.\n and \n Yang, F.P.\n (2012), \u201cThe epidemiology of acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery in an Asian population\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 425-430.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrs.2011.09.040"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b11","unstructured":"The Royal College of Ophthalmologists\n (2010), \u201cCataract surgery guidelines\u201d, The Royal College of Ophthalmologists, London, available at: www.rcophth.ac.uk (accessed 28 May 2012)."},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Thirumalai, B.\n and \n Baranyovitis, P.R.\n (2003), \u201cIntraocular pressure changes and its implications on patient review after phacoemulsification\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 504-507.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0886-3350(02)01481-5"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tinley, C.G.\n , \n Frost, A.\n , \n Hakin, K.N.\n , \n McDermott, W.\n and \n Ewings, P.\n (2003), \u201cIs visual outcome compromised when next day review is omitted after phacoemulsification surgery? A randomized controlled trial\u201d, The British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 87 No. 11, pp. 1350-1355.","DOI":"10.1136\/bjo.87.11.1350"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tranos, P.G.\n , \n Wickremasinghe, S.S.\n , \n Hildebrand, D.\n , \n Asaria, R.\n , \n Mearza, A.\n , \n Ghazi-Nouri, S.\n and \n Little, B.C.\n (2003), \u201cSame-day vs first-day review of intraocular pressure after uneventful phacoemulsification\u201d, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 508-512.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0886-3350(02)01649-8"},{"key":"key2021010120373357600_b15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wong, T.Y.\n and \n Chee, S.P.\n (2004), \u201cThe epidemiology of acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery in an Asian population\u201d, Ophthalmology, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 699-705.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2003.07.014"}],"container-title":["International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emeraldinsight.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1108\/IJHCQA-11-2012-0120","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/IJHCQA-11-2012-0120\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/IJHCQA-11-2012-0120\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,25]],"date-time":"2025-07-25T01:05:28Z","timestamp":1753405528000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/ijhcqa\/article\/27\/4\/347-354\/122622"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,6]]},"references-count":15,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/IJHCQA-11-2012-0120"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/ijhcqa-11-2012-0120","relation":{},"ISSN":["0952-6862"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0952-6862","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,6]]}}}