Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2025
Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients
Published on: April 14, 2014
Development and 5-year Evaluation of Diagnosis-Specific Protocols for Visual Neuro-Rehabilitation in a Multicenter
Kevin E Houston1,2,3,4,5,6, Matthew Keilty1, Caroline Collins1
1Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Cape Cod, Sandwich, MA.
Objective:
To provide a retrospective evaluation of a new eye and vision rehabilitation care pathway in a U.S. multi-site inpatient rehabilitation network involving the occupational therapy (OT) staff and a consulting doctor of optometry (OD) specializing in vision rehabilitation.
Design:
Retrospective study.
Setting:
Two Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) and 1 Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH).
Participants:
There were 2083 records reviewed (44% women, avg. age 59 years). The most common diagnoses were hemispatial neglect (19.2%), homonymous field defects (18.5%), and oculomotor cranial nerve palsies (16.7%) (N=2083).
Interventions:
Clinical care was reviewed where diagnosis-specific protocols were developed and training was provided to OTs in order to reinforce OD-prescribed interventions during daily treatment sessions, including (1) third, fourth, and sixth ocular cranial nerve palsies (OCNPs) with prisms fitted for full time, postural adaptation training, and oculomotor re-education using pursuits, saccades, head-rotations, and binocular vision exercises including alternate cover and vergence; (2) homonymous hemianopia with training awareness of field loss, eccentric viewing, and fitting of Peli lens for optical field expansion; and (3) prism adaptation therapy (PAT) for left hemispatial neglect.
Main Outcome Measures:
Frequency of diagnoses.
Hypothesis:
Diagnoses with developed protocols were most common. Secondarily, feasibility and efficacy by anonymous OT survey.
Results:
2083 vision consults were performed over 5 years. The most common diagnoses were hemispatial neglect (n=399, 19.2%), homonymous field defects (n=386, 18.5%), and OCNPs (n=347, 16.7%). None of the OTs reported the protocols were infeasible and 63% (IQR 38%-69%) reported their patients benefited from the interventions. The survey suggested prism for OCNPs helped in 42%, and Peli lens and PAT both helped in 38%.
Conclusions:
Data support the feasibility of this inpatient eye and vision rehabilitation care pathway which may be used as a foundation for creating or refining similar programs elsewhere. Uniform administration of IRF-based visual neuro-rehabilitation care could provide a substrate for future clinical trials to evaluate efficacy.
