Project description:The use of information technology, including internet- and telephone-based resources, is becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone consultations provide a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilize a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-face general practice visits.A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed using the search terms for the intervention (telephone consultation) and the comparator (general practice). Systematic reviews and randomized control trials that examined telephone consultation compared to normal face-to-face consultation in general practice were included in this review. Papers were reviewed, assessed for quality (Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool) and data extracted and analysed.Two systematic reviews and one RCT were identified and included in the analysis. The RCT (N?=?388) was of patients requesting same-day appointments from two general practices and patients were randomized to a same-day face-to-face appointment or a telephone call back consultation. There was a reduction in the time spent on consultations in the telephone group (1.5 min (0.6 to 2.4)) and patients in the telephone arm had 0.2 (0 to 0.3) more follow-up consultations than the face-to-face group. One systematic review focused on telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use, and included one RCT and one other observational study that examined telephone consultations. The other systematic review focused on patient access and included one RCT and four observational studies that examined telephone consultations. Both systematic reviews provided narrative interpretations of the evidence and concluded that telephone consultations provided an appropriate alternative to telephone consultations and reduced practice work load.There is a lack of high level evidence for telephone consultations in a GP setting; however, current evidence suggests that telephone consultations as an alternative to face-to-face general practice consultations offers an appropriate option in certain settings.PROSPERO CRD42015025225.
Project description:ObjectivesDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face rheumatology follow-up appointments were mostly replaced with telephone or virtual consultations in order to protect vulnerable patients. We aimed to investigate the perspectives of rheumatology patients on the use of telephone consultations compared with the traditional face-to-face consultation.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective survey of all rheumatology follow-up patients at the Royal Wolverhampton Trust who had received a telephone consultation from a rheumatology consultant during a 4-week period via an online survey tool.ResultsSurveys were distributed to 1213 patients, of whom 336 (27.7%) responded, and 306 (91.1%) patients completed all components of the survey. Overall, an equal number of patients would prefer telephone clinics or face-to-face consultations for their next routine appointment. When divided by age group, the majority who preferred the telephone clinics were <50 years old [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 10.075, P = 0.018]. Prevalence of a smartphone was higher among younger patients (<50 years old: 46 of 47, 97.9%) than among older patients (≥50 years old: 209 of 259, 80.7%) [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 20.919, P < 0.001]. More patients reported that they would prefer a telephone call for urgent advice (168, 54.9%).ConclusionMost patients interviewed were happy with their routine face-to-face appointment being switched to a telephone consultation. Of those interviewed, patients >50 years old were less likely than their younger counterparts to want telephone consultations in place of face-to-face appointments. Most patients in our study would prefer a telephone consultation for urgent advice. We must ensure that older patients and those in vulnerable groups who value in-person contact are not excluded. Telephone clinics in some form are here to stay in rheumatology for the foreseeable future.
Project description:There are no studies describing the nature and quality of telephone consultations for critically ill children despite being an important part of pediatric intensive care. We described pediatric telephone consultations to a PICU in Ontario, Canada in 2011 and 2012. Of 203 consultations, 104 patients (51.2%) were admitted to the PICU; this was associated with weekend consultations ( p ?=?0.005) and referral hospital location ( p ?=?0.036). Frequency of interruptions was 1 in every 3.2 (2.0, 5.7) minutes and not associated with call content. Twenty-one percent of consults had limited discussion of vital signs. Our study described our center's remote critical care consultation program and outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundTelehealth has been used for health care delivery for decades, but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the uptake of telehealth in many care settings globally. However, few studies have carried out a direct comparison among different telehealth modalities, with very few studies having compared the effectiveness of telephone and video telehealth modalities.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing synchronous telehealth consultations delivered by telephone and those conducted by video with outcomes such as clinical effectiveness, patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient and clinician satisfaction with care.MethodsPubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and CENTRAL were searched via the Cochrane Library from inception until February 10, 2023, for RCTs without any language restriction. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted on included RCTs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. We included studies carried out in any health setting-involving all types of outpatient cohorts and all types of health care providers-that compared synchronous video consultations directly with telephone consultations and reported outcomes specified in the objective. We excluded studies of clinician-to-clinician telehealth consults, hospitalized patients, and asynchronous consultations.ResultsSixteen RCTs-10 in the United States, 3 in the United Kingdom, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Australia involving 1719 participants-were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Most of the telehealth interventions were for hospital-based outpatient follow-ups, monitoring, and rehabilitation (n=13). The 3 studies that were conducted in the community all focused on smoking cessation. In half of the studies, nurses delivered the care (n=8). Almost all included studies had high or unclear risk of bias, mainly due to bias in the randomization process and selection of reported results. The trials found no substantial differences between telephone and video telehealth consultations with regard to clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and health care use (cost-effectiveness) outcomes. None of the studies reported on patient safety or adverse events. We did not find any study on telehealth interventions for diagnosis, initiating new treatment, or those conducted in a primary care setting.ConclusionsBased on a small set of diverse trials, we found no notable differences between telephone and video consultations for the management of patients with an established diagnosis. There is also a significant lack of telehealth research in primary care settings despite its high uptake.
Project description:BackgroundRAAPID (Referral, Access, Advice, Placement, Information, and Destination) is a 24-h call center in Alberta, Canada, facilitating urgent telephone consultations between physicians and specialists. We evaluated the extent to which RAAPID calls to Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) reduced visits to the emergency department and specialty clinics.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study evaluating all telephone consultations to OHNS from physicians in northern Alberta between 2013 and 2014 (T1) (where consultations by residents occurred) and 2015 to 2017 (T2) (where consultations were done by consultants during office hours and residents during after hours). Outcomes of the calls included medical advice, specialty clinic referrals, and emergency department (ED) referrals. Differences in the reduction of ED visits and costs, overall as well as in T1 and T2, were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.ResultsOverall, 62.3% (1064/1709) of telephone consultations reduced ED visits consisting of advice being provided (n = 884; 83.1%) and referral to specialty clinics (n = 180; 16.9%). The adjusted odds ratio of calls reducing emergency visits in T2 as compared to T1 was 2.47 (95% CI 1.99 to 3.08). The adjusted odds ratio of reducing ED visits during office hours compared to after-hours 2.54 (95% CI 1.77-3.64). The estimated direct costs avoided from ED visits in T1 and T2 were $42,224.22 and $114,393.86, respectively.ConclusionRAAPID telephone consultations to OHNS were effective in reducing ED visits and healthcare costs. This model should be considered in other areas to improve efficiencies within the health system.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain. METHODS:Patients referred to an interdisciplinary chronic pain service were randomly assigned to either receive usual care by the primary care physician, or to have their case discussed in a telephone consultation between a pain specialist and the referring primary care physician. Patients completed a numerical rating scale for pain, the Pain Disability Index and the Short Form-36 on referral, as well as three and six months later. Primary care physicians completed a brief survey to assess their impressions of the telephone consultation. RESULTS:Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care group or the standard telephone consultation group, and 67 completed the study protocol. Patients were comparable on baseline pain and demographic characteristics. No differences were found between the groups at six months after referral in regard to pain, disability or quality of life measures. Eighty percent of primary care physicians indicated that they learned new patient care strategies from the telephone consultation, and 97% reported that the consultation answered their questions and helped in the care of their patient. DISCUSSION:Most primary care physicians reported that a telephone consultation with a pain specialist answered their questions, improved their patients' care and resulted in new learning. Differences in patient status compared with a usual care control group were not detectable at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:While telephone consultations are clearly an acceptable strategy for knowledge translation, additional strategies may be required to actually impact patient outcomes.
Project description:Consultations on telephone are ever increasing especially in primary healthcare. Currently the estimated total number consultations in England rose from 224.5 million to 243.1 million in 1995/1996 to 303.9 million to 313.6 million in 2008/2009, out of which 3% of consultations in 1995/1996 were telephone consultations which increased to 12% in 2008/2009. Literature search was done on published articles on tele-healthcare which resulted in devising a telephone consultation model. An audit was carried out in urban Cambridge family practice over the period of one year after implementing this telephone consultation model. Following proposed consultation model by healthcare staff, it has improved patient satisfaction survey from 75% to 94%, face to face consultation rate was reduced by 1.6%, home visits were reduced by 2.9% however the direct economic saving could not be determined. Further research is required to assess the detailed economic analysis of using effective telephone consultation in healthcare. The data shown in this article is related to primary care in the UK, but its concept can be replicated by any country in Europe or rest of the world providing primary healthcare to public.
Project description:PurposeNon-urgent face-to-face outpatient ophthalmology appointments were suspended in the United Kingdom in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In common with other centres, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London) offered modified telephone consultations to new and follow-up patients in the low vision clinic. Here we assess the success of this telephone service.MethodsData were collected for 500 consecutive telephone low vision appointments. Successful completion of the assessment and clinical outcomes (low vision aids prescribed, onward referral) were recorded.ResultsTelephone assessments were completed for 364 people (72.8%). The most common reasons for non-completion were either no answer to the telephone call (75 people, 15%), or the patient declining assessment (20 people, 4%). There was no association between age and the likelihood of an assessment being completed. 131 new low vision aids were dispensed, 77 internal referrals were made and 15 people were referred to outside services. More than 80% of the low vision aids prescribed were useful.ConclusionsTelephone low vision assessments were completed in about three-quarters of cases. About one-quarter of consultations resulted in new low vision aids being dispensed, which were generally found useful. Telephone low vision assessments can be used successfully in a large low vision clinic, but have many limitations when compared to face-to-face assessments.
Project description:IntroductionIn 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid uptake of virtual consultations (VCs) to minimise disease transmission and for this reason, research into telerehabilitation has been expanding. This review aimed to map and synthesize evidence on the use of VCs in upper limb musculoskeletal rehabilitation, describe key characteristics, and identify gaps in the research.MethodsThis scoping review investigated synchronous rehabilitation consultations performed over VC. All asynchronous, wearable or pre-recorded technology was excluded. CINAHL Complete, Medline, PEDro, Google Scholar and grey literature sources were searched. Screening and data extraction were done by a single researcher. Frequency counts were used to analyse the data.ResultsNineteen studies were identified, with patients with shoulder injury/pain most frequently studied. Most sources (n = 9) used bespoke video programmes. Range of motion (ROM) was the most common assessment (n = 10) and exercise prescription (n = 7) was the most common treatment. Benefits included time and cost savings, maintaining therapeutic relationships and increasing patient independence. Most diagnostic assessments, except joint and nerve tension tests, were found to be reliable and valid. Studies noted increased function in activities, decreased pain and increased ROM after VCs. Limitations included restricted 'hands-on' treatment, resource and training concerns and limiting patient factors.ConclusionsThis review mapped available evidence and identified several gaps in the literature. Further robust research into VCs for hand/wrist disorders, ROM assessment and cost-effectiveness is needed.
Project description:ImportanceCritically ill children presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in non-children's hospitals are at high risk for experiencing medical errors, including medication errors. Video telemedicine consultations with pediatric specialists have the potential to reduce the risk of medication errors beyond the current standard of care, telephone consultations.ObjectiveTo compare the rates of ED physician-related medication errors among critically ill children randomized to receive either video telemedicine or telephone consultations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized, unbalanced crossover trial was conducted at 15 community EDs in northern California between September 2014 and March 2018. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to January 2023. Participants included acutely ill children younger than 15 years presenting to a participating ED.InterventionsParticipating EDs were randomized to use video telemedicine or telephone for consultations with pediatric critical care physicians according to 1 of 4 unbalanced (3 telemedicine to 1 telephone) crossover treatment assignment sequences.Main outcomes and measuresPharmacists reviewed medical records to document physician-related medication errors using a previously validated instrument. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to create models with the medication order as the unit of analysis and adjusting for age, the log-transformed Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool score, and hospital study period.ResultsA total of 696 patient encounters were included in the trial (mean [SD] age, 4.2 [4.6] years; median [IQR] age, 2.1 [0.5-2.1] years; 304 female [43.7%]), with 537 patient encounters (77.2%) assigned to video telemedicine and 159 patient encounters (22.8%) assigned to telephone. At least 1 physician-related medication error occurred for 87 patients (12.5%), including 20 of 159 patients (12.6%) in the telephone cohort and 67 of 537 patients (12.5%) in the telemedicine cohort. Of the 2414 medication orders, errors occurred in 124 cases (5.1%), including 26 of 513 orders (5.1%) in the telephone cohort and 98 of 1901 orders (5.2%) in the telemedicine cohort. In the multivariable analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of experiencing a medication error among those assigned to telemedicine was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.49-1.52; P = .61).Conclusions and relevanceThis cluster randomized crossover trial found no statistically significant differences in physician-related medication errors between critically ill children assigned to receive telephone consultations vs video telemedicine consultations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877810.