The Save Sight Keratoconus Registry (SSKR) collects outcomes data on patients with keratoconus and provides benchmark reports for clinicians. The Save Sight Institute at the University of Sydney believes these reports can, among other things, improve the practice of corneal crosslinking. However, they understand that practitioners may be hesitant to adopt it because they fear it will add time to their exams and interrupt workflow. A new time–motion study may alleviate those fears, demonstrating no impact of the SSKR on the overall time spent in clinical care of patients with keratoconus. Most clinician survey responses to the SSKR were even positive.

The SSKR was implemented into clinical practice without affecting the total consultation time, time spent directly interacting with patients or use of patient records, the researchers note in their paper:

• No change in average time spent per patient with or without the SSKR: 12.3 vs. 12.1 minutes.
• No change in time spent providing direct care with or without the SSKR: 5.4 vs. 5.9 minutes.
• No impact with or without the SSKR on the time spent examining (1.9 vs. 1.9 minutes) or talking to patients (3.5 vs. 4.1 minutes).
• Indirect care time was unchanged overall for record keeping (3.2 vs. 4.6 minutes)

The study noted that survey feedback was overall positive, with 78% to 97% of clinicians reporting they agreed or somewhat agreed that the SSKR was of high quality and was implemented effectively in all categories.

The researchers did find that significantly more time was spent using computers and significantly less time was spent with paper notes in roughly equal amounts with the use of their registry. They believe this might represent significant time savings in some activities and translate into overall gains in efficiency if a single-point data entry system is achieved.

The study concluded that registries requiring manual data entry could be widely adopted into routine clinical practice.