Dataset Information

Do patients really prefer individual outpatient follow-up visits, compared with group medical visits?

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Access to outpatient psychiatric care remains problematic in Canada. We have been using group medical visits (GMV) to treat psychiatric outpatients with mood and anxiety disorders. Our study aimed to show that patients are similarly satisfied with GMV and individual psychiatric treatment, hence the concern that patients truly prefer individual treatment may be unfounded. METHOD:Our study compared patient satisfaction in people who have had previous individual psychiatric care and are now receiving GMV to determine whether there is a treatment preference. RESULTS:Questionnaire data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The ANOVAs showed no differences in patients' experiences with individual treatment, compared with GMV. In addition, we found when asked directly, most patients preferred GMV or had no treatment preference. CONCLUSIONS:These findings indicate that patients' perspectives of individual psychiatric treatment and GMV are roughly equal. This suggests that the method of GMV deserves further study and comparison with other clinical models of psychiatric outpatient treatment.

SUBMITTER: Remick RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4079228 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do patients really prefer individual outpatient follow-up visits, compared with group medical visits?

Remick Ronald A RA Remick Abigail K AK

Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 20140101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Access to outpatient psychiatric care remains problematic in Canada. We have been using group medical visits (GMV) to treat psychiatric outpatients with mood and anxiety disorders. Our study aimed to show that patients are similarly satisfied with GMV and individual psychiatric treatment, hence the concern that patients truly prefer individual treatment may be unfounded.<h4>Method</h4>Our study compared patient satisfaction in people who have had previous individual psychiatric ...[more]

PMID: 24444324

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTimely, in-person access to health care is a challenge for people living with conditions such as stroke that result in frailty, loss of independence, restrictions in driving and mobility, and physical and cognitive decline. In Southeastern Ontario, access is further complicated by rurality and the long travel distances to visit physician clinics. There is a need to make health care more accessible and convenient. Home virtual visits (electronic visits, eVisits) can conveniently connect physicians to patients. Physicians use a secure personal videoconferencing tool to connect to patients in their homes. Patients use their device of choice (smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop) for the visit.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and logistics of implementing eVisits in a stroke prevention clinic for seniors.MethodsA 6-month eVisit pilot study was initiated in the Kingston Health Sciences Centre stroke prevention clinic in August 2018. eVisits were used only for follow-up patient encounters. An integrated evaluation was used to test the impact of the program on clinic workflow and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by telephone interviews, using a brief questionnaire. Access and patient satisfaction metrics were compared with concurrent standard of care (patients' prior personal experience with in-person visits). Values are presented as median (interquartile range).ResultsThere were 75 subjects in the pilot. The patients were aged 65 (56-73.5) years, and 39% (29/75) resided in rural areas. There was a shorter wait for an appointment by eVisit versus in-person (mean 59.98 [SD 48.36] days vs mean 78.36 [SD 50.54] days; P<.001). The eVisit was also shorter, taking on an average of only 10 min to deliver follow-up care with a high degree of patient satisfaction versus 90 (60-112) min for in-person care. The total time saved by patients per eVisit was 80 (50-102) min, 44 (21-69) min of which was travel time. Travel distance avoided by the patients was 30.1 km (11.2-82.2). The estimated total out-of-pocket cost savings for patients per eVisit was Can $52.83 (31.26-94.53). The estimated savings (opportunity cost for in-person outpatient care) for our eVisit pilot project was Can $23,832-$28,584. The patient satisfaction with eVisits was very good compared with their prior personal experience with in-person outpatient care.ConclusionsThe eVisit program was well received by patients, deemed to be safe by physicians, and avoided unnecessary patient travel and expense. It also has the potential to reduce health care costs. We plan to scale the project within the department and the institution.

Project description:BackgroundBRCA mutation carriers have a 40-80% life-time risk of developing breast cancer. They may opt for yearly breast cancer surveillance or for prophylactic mastectomy. Both options show increased survival rates. It is a complex choice to be made between these two options. As a result most women experience high levels of distress and high needs for information. To fulfill the needs for psychosocial support and information we have introduced group medical consultations (GMCs). A GMC provides individual medical visits conducted within a group. This 90 minute group-visit with 8-12 patients gives patients the opportunity to spend more time with their clinician and a behavioral health professional and learn from other patients experiencing similar topics. However, it should be noted that group sessions may increase fear in some patients or influence their decision making.Methods/designIn this randomized controlled trial, 160 BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed maximally 2 years ago are recruited from the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the GMC intervention group (onetime participation in a GMC instead of a standard individual visit) or to a usual care control group. Primary outcome measures are empowerment and psychological distress (SCL 90). Secondary outcome measures are fear of cancer, information needs before the consultation and the received information, self-examination of the breasts, patient satisfaction, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Data are collected via self-reported questionnaires 1 week before the visit, and at 1 week and at 3 months follow-up. A pilot study was conducted to test all procedures and questionnaires.DiscussionThe possibility for interaction with other BRCA mutation carriers within a medical visit is unique. This study will assess the effectiveness of GMCs for BRCA mutation carriers to improve empowerment and decrease distress compared to individual visits. If GMCs prove to be effective and efficient, implementation of GMCs in regular care for BRCA mutation carriers will be recommended.

Project description:BackgroundAs an effort to reduce hospital readmissions, early follow-up visits were recommended by the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, published literature on the effect of follow-up visits is limited with mixed conclusions. Our goal here is to fully explore the relationship between follow-up visits and the all-cause non-elective 30-day readmission rate (RR) after adjusting for confounders.Methods and resultsTo conduct this retrospective observational study, we extracted data for 55,378 adult inpatients from Advocate Health Care, a large, multi-hospital system serving a diverse population in a major metropolitan area. These patients were discharged to Home or Home with Home Health services between June 1, 2013 and April 30, 2015. Our findings from time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models showed that follow-up visits were significantly associated with a reduced RR (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.82-0.91), but in a complicated way because the interaction between follow-up visits and a readmission risk score was significant with p-value < 0.001. Our analysis using logistic models on an adjusted data set confirmed the above findings with the following additional results. First, time matter. Follow-up visits within 2 days were associated with the greatest reduction in RR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.63-0.83). Visits beyond 2 days were also associated with a reduction in RR, but the strength of the effect decreased as the time between discharge and follow-up visit increased. Second, the strength of such association varied for patients with different readmission risk scores. Patients with a risk score of 0.113, high but not extremely high risk, had the greatest reduction in RR from follow-up visits. Patients with an extremely high risk score (> 0.334) saw no RR reduction from follow-up visits. Third, a patient was much more likely to have a 2-day follow-up visit if that visit was scheduled before the patient was discharged from the hospital (30% versus < 5%).ConclusionsFollow-up visits are associated with a reduction in readmission risk. The timing of follow-up visits can be important: beyond two days, the earlier, the better. The effect of follow-up visits is more significant for patients with a high but not extremely high risk of readmission.

Dataset Information

Do patients really prefer individual outpatient follow-up visits, compared with group medical visits?

Publications

Do patients really prefer individual outpatient follow-up visits, compared with group medical visits?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets