Video Visits as a Substitute for Urological Clinic Visits.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate whether video visits were being used as substitutes to clinic visits prior to COVID-19 at our institution's outpatient urology centers.Methods
We reviewed 600 established patient video visits completed by 13 urology providers at a tertiary academic center in southeast Michigan. We compared these visits to a random, stratified sample of established patient clinic visits. We assessed baseline demographics and visit characteristics for both groups. We defined our primary outcome ("revisit rate") as the proportion of additional healthcare evaluation (ie, office, emergency room, hospitalization) by a urology provider within 30 days of the initial encounter.Results
Patients seen by video visit tended to be younger (51 vs 61 years, P <.001), would have to travel further for a clinic appointment (82 vs 68 miles, P <.001), and were more likely to be female (36 vs 28%, P?=?.001). The most common diagnostic groups evaluated through video visits were nephrolithiasis (40%), oncology (18%) and andrology (14.3%). While the 30-day revisit rates were higher for clinic visits (4.3% vs 7.5%, P?=?.01) primarily due to previously scheduled appointments, revisits due to medical concerns were similar across both groups (0.5% vs 0.67%; P?=?.60).Conclusions
Video visits can be used to deliver care across a broad range of urologic diagnoses and can serve as a substitute for clinic visits.
SUBMITTER: Andino JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834609 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Video Visits as a Substitute for Urological Clinic Visits.
Andino Juan J JJ Lingaya Mark-Anthony MA Daignault-Newton Stephanie S Shah Parth K PK Ellimoottil Chad C
Urology 20200630
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether video visits were being used as substitutes to clinic visits prior to COVID-19 at our institution's outpatient urology centers.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed 600 established patient video visits completed by 13 urology providers at a tertiary academic center in southeast Michigan. We compared these visits to a random, stratified sample of established patient clinic visits. We assessed baseline demographics and visit characteristics for both groups. We defined o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of patients are visiting retail clinics for simple acute conditions. Physicians worry that visits to retail clinics will interfere with primary care relationships. No prior study has evaluated the impact of retail clinics on receipt of primary care.ObjectiveTo assess the association between retail clinic use and receipt of key primary care functions.DesignWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis using commercial insurance claims from 2007 to 2009.PatientsWe identified patients who had a visit for a simple acute condition in 2008, the "index visit". We divided these 127,358 patients into two cohorts according to the location of that index visit: primary care provider (PCP) versus retail clinic.Main measuresWe evaluated three functions of primary care: (1) where patients first sought care for subsequent simple acute conditions; (2) continuity of care using the Bice-Boxerman index; and (3) preventive care and diabetes management. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared care received in the 365 days following the index visit to care received in the 365 days prior, using propensity score weights to account for selection bias.Key resultsVisiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP for the index visit was associated with a 27.7 visits per 100 patients differential reduction (p?< 0?.001) in subsequent PCP visits for new simple acute conditions. Visiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP was also associated with decreased subsequent continuity of care (10.9 percentage-point differential reduction in Bice-Boxerman index, p?< 0?.001). There was no differential change between the cohorts in receipt of preventive care or diabetes management.ConclusionsRetail clinics may disrupt two aspects of primary care: whether patients go to a PCP first for new conditions and continuity of care. However, they do not negatively impact preventive care or diabetes management.
| S-EPMC3599015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTelehealth has emerged as a means of improving access and reducing cost for medical oncology care; however, use by specialists prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic still remained low. Medical oncology professionals' perceptions of telehealth for cancer care are largely unknown, but are critical to telehealth utilization and expansion efforts.ObjectiveTo identify medical oncology health professionals' perceptions of the barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used interviews conducted from October 30, 2019, to March 5, 2020, of medical oncology health professionals at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an urban academic health system in the US with a cancer center. All medical oncology physicians, physicians assistants, and nurse practitioners at the hospital were eligible to participate. A combination of volunteer and convenience sampling was used, resulting in the participation of 29 medical oncology health professionals, including 20 physicians and 9 advanced practice professionals, in semistructured interviews.Main outcomes and measuresMedical oncology health professionals' perceptions of barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits as experienced by patients receiving cancer treatment.ResultsOf the 29 participants, 15 (52%) were women and 22 (76%) were White, with a mean (SD) age of 48.5 (12.0) years. Respondents' perceptions were organized using the 4 domains of the National Quality Forum framework: clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Respondents disagreed on the clinical effectiveness and potential limitations of the virtual physical examination, as well as on the financial impact on patients. Respondents also largely recognized the convenience and improved access to care enabled by telehealth for patients. However, many reported concern regarding the health professional-patient relationship and their limited ability to comfort patients in a virtual setting.Conclusions and relevanceMedical oncology health professionals shared conflicting opinions regarding the barriers to and benefits of telehealth in regard to clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Understanding oncologists' perceptions of telehealth elucidates potential barriers that need to be further investigated or improved for telehealth expansion and continued utilization; further research is ongoing to assess current perceptions of health professionals and patients given the rapid expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7809588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the impact of telehealth in the setting of COVID-19 on patient access to ambulatory rheumatologic care at our academic public health system and to determine whether telemedicine visits had a beneficial impact on access to our rheumatology ambulatory clinics.MethodsWe compared completed, no-show, and cancellation rates between in-person clinic visits and telemedicine appointments over a 10-week time period before Ohio's initial executive order responding to COVID-19 (premandate period) and a 10-week time period afterward (postmandate period). Scheduling and appointment data were retrospectively extracted from the medical center's electronic health record.ResultsDuring the premandate period, when all visits were in-person, the total number of completed visits was 930. The percentages of cancellations, no-shows, and completed appointments of all appointment activities were 31.43%, 13.12%, and 55.46%, respectively. During the postmandate period, when telemedicine visits were added, the overall total number of completed visits was 1038. The percentages of cancellations, no-shows, and completed appointments of all appointment activities were 53.45%, 13.91%, and 32.64%, respectively, for in-person appointments and 0.12%, 8.48%, and 91.39%, respectively, for telemedicine appointments.ConclusionTelemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in higher rates of completed appointments and lower rates of missed appointments in the rheumatology outpatient clinic compared with in-person visits during and prior to the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8653077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExisting sepsis quality improvement initiatives focus on recognition and treatment of sepsis upon hospital admission. Yet many patients are evaluated in the clinic within 1 day of sepsis hospitalization.ObjectivesTo determine the circumstances of clinic visits that precede sepsis hospitalization, including illness severity, whether patients are referred to the hospital, and time lapse and change in illness severity between clinic and hospital evaluation.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center, data from electronic medical records were collected for all adult patients evaluated in an outpatient clinic within 1 day of sepsis hospitalization in 2017.ResultsOf 1450 patients hospitalized with sepsis, 118 had an established outpatient provider and a clinic visit within 1 day of admission and thus were included. During the clinic visit, 47 patients (39.8%) had a quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score ≥1, and 59 (50.0%) had vital sign abnormalities. Most (74, 62.7%) were sent directly to the emergency department or hospital. Upon emergency department/hospital presentation, 62 patients (52.5%) had a worsening qSOFA score and/ or vital signs and 27 (22.9%) had worsening of multiple parameters. Median time lapse from clinic to emergency department/hospital evaluation was 3.2 hours.ConclusionsOne in 10 patients hospitalized for sepsis had been evaluated in a clinic within 1 day of admission. At that clinic visit, most patients had an elevated qSOFA score or abnormal vital signs and a majority were sent directly to the emergency department/hospital. Half experienced clinical deterioration between the clinic visit and arrival in the emergency department/hospital.
| S-EPMC8789345 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9857436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of telemedicine for postoperative visits is increasing, especially in rural areas. Few studies have investigated its use for arthroscopic shoulder patients. This study aims to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine for postoperative clinic visits following arthroscopic shoulder procedures in a rural setting.MethodsPatients were prospectively enrolled using the following exclusion criteria: <18 years, open procedures, and non-compliance follow-up at 6 weeks postoperatively. All patients completed a 13-question satisfaction survey, while telemedicine patients completed an additional, separate seven-question survey. Patients who switched groups completed a four-question prompt to determine the reasons for switching. Differences between groups were evaluated by either Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test.ResultsThe study enrolled 32 patients, with five patients following up by telemedicine and 27 in person. Age and distance from clinic were similar between patients who were assigned to the telemedicine group, completed the telemedicine visit, and opted for in-person visits (all p>0.05). Patient satisfaction did not vary significantly based on care by the surgeon, concerns being addressed, thoroughness of visit, overall clinical assessment at a prior visit, and improvements in pain and physical function (all p>0.05). Among patients who opted out of telemedicine visits, the most common reason was a preference to meet in-person but these patients agreed that telemedicine visits are a good idea.ConclusionsRegardless of type of follow-up, individuals reported similar levels of satisfaction with treatment during the visit and improvements in pain and physical function.
| S-EPMC9185120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine associations of incident cancer diagnoses in women with recent emergency department (ED) care.Patients and methodsA retrospective cohort study analyzing biological females aged 18 years and older, who were diagnosed with an incident primary cancer (12 cancer types studied) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, from electronic health records. The primary outcome was a cancer diagnosis within 6 months of a preceding ED visit. Secondary outcomes included patient factors associated with a preceding ED visit.ResultsOf 25,736 patients (median age of 62 years, range 18-101) diagnosed with an incident primary cancer, 1938 (7.5%) had an ED visit ≤6 months before a diagnosis. The ED-associated cancer cases were highest in lung cancer (n=514, 14.7%) followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=22, 13.3%). Patient factors increasing the likelihood of ED evaluation before diagnosis included 18-50 years of age (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.09-1.61), Elixhauser score (measure of comorbidities) >4 (OR=17.90; 95% CI, 14.21-22.76), use of Medicaid or other government insurance (OR=2.10; 95% CI, 1.63-2.69), residence within the institutional catchment areas (OR=3.18; 95% CI, 2.78-3.66), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR=1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.88), and established primary care provider at Mayo Clinic (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65). The ED visits were more likely in those who died within 6 months of diagnosis (n=327, 37.8%) than those who did not die (n=1611, 6.5%).ConclusionPatient characteristics identified in this study offer opportunities to provide cancer risk assessment and health navigation, particularly among individuals with comorbidities and limited health care access.
| S-EPMC11002794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch confirms the heterogeneous nature of patient challenges during recovery from the ICU and supports the need for modifying care experiences, but few data are available to guide clinicians seeking to support patients' individual recovery trajectories.Research questionWhat is the content of patient-provider dialogues in a telemedicine multidisciplinary ICU recovery clinic (ICU-RC)?Study design and methodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study in a telemedicine multidisciplinary ICU-RC at a tertiary academic medical center in the southeastern United States. The sample included 19 patients and 13 caregivers (≥ 18 years of age) attending a telemedicine ICU-RC visit after critical illness resulting from septic shock or ARDS. Patients and caregivers met with an ICU pharmacist, ICU physician, and a psychologist via a secure web-conferencing platform for 33 ICU-RC visits within 12 weeks of hospital discharge. Telemedicine ICU-RC visits were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. A coding system was developed using iterative inductive and deductive approaches.ResultsTwo themes were identified from the patient-provider dialogue: (1) problem identification and (2) problem-solving strategies. We identified five subthemes that capture the types of problems identified: health status, mental health and cognition, medication management, health-care access and navigation, and quality of life. Problem-solving subthemes included facilitating care coordination and transitions, providing education, and giving constructive feedback and guidance.InterpretationPatients surviving a critical illness experience a complexity of problems that may be addressed best by a multidisciplinary ICU-RC. Through analysis of our telemedicine ICU-RC dialogues, we were able to identify problems and solutions to address challenges during a critical transitional phase of ICU recovery.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03926533; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.
| S-EPMC10258431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Video-based health care can help address access gaps for patients and is rapidly being offered by health care organizations. However, patients who lack access to technology may be left behind in these initiatives. In 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began distributing video-enabled tablets to provide video visits to veterans with health care access barriers. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate veterans' experiences with VA-issued tablets and identify patient characteristics associated with preferences for video visits vs in-person care. METHODS:A baseline survey was sent to the tablet recipients, and a follow-up survey was sent to the respondents 3 to 6 months later. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with preferences for care, and we examined qualitative themes around care preferences using standard content analysis methods for coding the data collected in the open-ended questions. RESULTS:Patient-reported access barriers centered around transportation and health-related challenges, outside commitments, and feeling uncomfortable or uneasy at the VA. Satisfaction with the tablet program was high, and in the follow-up survey, approximately two-thirds of tablet recipients preferred care via a tablet (194/604, 32.1%) or expressed that video-based and in-person care were "about the same" (216/604, 35.7%), whereas one-third (192/604, 31.7%) indicated a preference for in-person care. Patients were significantly more likely to report a preference for video visits (vs a preference for in-person visits or rating them "about the same") if they felt uncomfortable in a VA setting, reported a collaborative communication style with their doctor, had a substance use disorder diagnosis, or lived in a place with better broadband coverage. Patients were less likely to report a preference for video visits if they had more chronic conditions. Qualitative analyses identified four themes related to preferences for video-based care: perceived improvements in access to care, perceived differential quality of care, feasibility of obtaining necessary care, and technology-related challenges. CONCLUSIONS:Many recipients of VA-issued tablets report that video care is equivalent to or preferred to in-person care. Results may inform efforts to identify good candidates for virtual care and interventions to support individuals who experience technical challenges.
| S-EPMC7191342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRural populations have a higher prevalence of obesity and poor access to weight loss programs. Effective models for treating obesity in rural clinical practice are needed.ObjectiveTo compare the Medicare Intensive Behavioral Therapy for Obesity fee-for-service model with 2 alternatives: in-clinic group visits based on a patient-centered medical home model and telephone-based group visits based on a disease management model.Design, setting, and participantsCluster randomized trial conducted in 36 primary care practices in the rural Midwestern US. Inclusion criteria included age 20 to 75 years and body mass index of 30 to 45. Participants were enrolled from February 2016 to October 2017. Final follow-up occurred in December 2019.InterventionsAll participants received a lifestyle intervention focused on diet, physical activity, and behavior change strategies. In the fee-for-service intervention (n = 473), practice-employed clinicians provided 15-minute in-clinic individual visits at a frequency similar to that reimbursed by Medicare (weekly for 1 month, biweekly for 5 months, and monthly thereafter). In the in-clinic group intervention (n = 468), practice-employed clinicians delivered group visits that were weekly for 3 months, biweekly for 3 months, and monthly thereafter. In the telephone group intervention (n = 466), patients received the same intervention as the in-clinic group intervention, but sessions were delivered remotely via conference calls by centralized staff.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was weight change at 24 months. A minimum clinically important difference was defined as 2.75 kg.ResultsAmong 1407 participants (mean age, 54.7 [SD, 11.8] years; baseline body mass index, 36.7 [SD, 4.0]; 1081 [77%] women), 1220 (87%) completed the trial. Mean weight loss at 24 months was -4.4 kg (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.4 kg) in the in-clinic group intervention, -3.9 kg (95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9 kg) in the telephone group intervention, and -2.6 kg (95% CI, -3.6 to -1.5 kg) in the in-clinic individual intervention. Compared with the in-clinic individual intervention, the mean difference in weight change was -1.9 kg (97.5% CI, -3.5 to -0.2 kg; P = .01) for the in-clinic group intervention and -1.4 kg (97.5% CI, -3.0 to 0.3 kg; P = .06) for the telephone group intervention.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with obesity in rural primary care clinics, in-clinic group visits but not telephone-based group visits, compared with in-clinic individual visits, resulted in statistically significantly greater weight loss at 24 months. However, the differences were small in magnitude and of uncertain clinical importance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02456636.
| S-EPMC7838934 | biostudies-literature