Dataset Information

Patient and Professional Experiences With Virtual Antenatal Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a UK Tertiary Obstetric Hospital: Questionnaire Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic required rapid implementation of virtual antenatal care to keep pregnant women safe. This transition from face-to-face usual care had to be embraced by patients and professionals alike.

Objective

We evaluated patients' and professionals' experiences with virtual antenatal clinic appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine satisfaction and inquire into the safety and quality of care received.

Methods

A total of 148 women who attended a virtual antenatal clinic appointment at our UK tertiary obstetric care center over a 2-week period provided feedback (n=92, 62% response rate). A further 37 health care professionals (HCPs) delivering care in the virtual antenatal clinics participated in another questionnaire study (37/45, 82% response rate).

Results

We showed that women were highly satisfied with the virtual clinics, with 86% (127/148) rating their experience as good or very good, and this was not associated with any statistically significant differences in age (P=.23), ethnicity (P=.95), number of previous births (P=.65), or pregnancy losses (P=.94). Even though 56% (83/148) preferred face-to-face appointments, 44% (65/148) either expressed no preference or preferred virtual, and these preferences were not associated with significant differences in patient demographics. For HCPs, 67% (18/27) rated their experience of virtual clinics as good or very good, 78% (21/27) described their experience as the same or better than face-to-face clinics, 15% (4/27) preferred virtual clinics, and 44% (12/27) had no preference. Importantly, 67% (18/27) found it easy or very easy to adapt to virtual clinics. Over 90% of HCPs agreed virtual clinics should be implemented long-term.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates high satisfaction with telephone antenatal clinics during the pandemic, which supports the transition toward widespread digitalization of antenatal care suited to 21st-century patients and professionals.

SUBMITTER: Quinn LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8409501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrating telehealth in an obstetric care model is important to prepare for possible infection outbreaks that require social distancing and limit in-person consultations. To ensure the successful implementation of obstetric telehealth in Hong Kong, it is essential to understand and address pregnant women's concerns.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess pregnant women's attitudes, concerns, and perceptions regarding telehealth obstetric clinic services in Hong Kong.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire study at Queen Mary Hospital between November 2021 and August 2022. Utilizing a 5-point rating scale, the questionnaire aimed to capture pregnant women's preferences, expectations, feasibility perceptions, and privacy concerns related to telehealth clinic services. We used statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression, to compare questionnaire responses and investigate the association between advancing gestation and attitudes toward telehealth clinics.ResultsThe study included 664 participants distributed across different pregnancy stages: 269 (40.5%) before 18 gestational weeks, 198 (29.8%) between 24 and 31 weeks, and 197 (29.7%) after delivery. Among them, 49.8% (329/664) favored face-to-face consultations over telehealth clinics, and only 7.3% (48/664) believed the opposite. Additionally, 24.2% (161/664) agreed that telehealth clinics should be launched for obstetric services. However, the overall preference for telehealth clinics was <20% for routine prenatal checkups (81/664, 12.2%) and addressing pregnancy-related concerns, such as vaginal bleeding (76/664, 11.5%), vaginal discharge (128/664, 19.4%), reduced fetal movement (64/664, 9.7%), uterine contractions (62/664, 9.4%), and suspected leakage of amniotic fluid (54/664, 8.2%). Conversely, 76.4% (507/664) preferred telehealth clinics to in-person visits for prenatal education talks, prenatal and postpartum exercise, and addressing breastfeeding problems. Participants were more comfortable with telehealth clinic tasks for tasks like explaining pregnancy exam results (418/664, 63.1%), self-administering urinary dipsticks at home (373/664, 56.4%), medical history-taking (341/664, 51.5%), and self-monitoring blood pressure using an electronic machine (282/664, 42.8%). %). During the postpartum period, compared to before 18 weeks of gestation, significantly more participants agreed that telehealth clinics could be an option for assessing physical symptoms such as vaginal bleeding (aOR 2.105, 95% CI 1.448-3.059), reduced fetal movement (aOR 1.575, 95% CI 1.058-2.345), uterine contractions (aOR 2.906, 95% CI 1.945-4.342), suspected leakage of amniotic fluid (aOR 2.609, 95% CI 1.721-3.954), fever (aOR 1.526, 95% CI 1.109-2.100), and flu-like symptoms (aOR 1.412, 95% CI 1.030-1.936). They were also more confident with measuring the symphysis-fundal height, arranging further investigations, and making diagnoses with the doctor via the telehealth clinic. The main perceived public health advantage of telehealth clinics was the shorter traveling and waiting time (526/664, 79.2%), while the main concern was legal issues from wrong diagnosis and treatment (511/664, 77.4%).ConclusionsFace-to-face consultation remained the preferred mode of consultation among the participants. However, telehealth clinics could be an alternative for services that do not require physical examination or contact. An increased acceptance of and confidence in telehealth was found with advancing gestation and after delivery. Enforcing stricter laws and guidelines could facilitate the implementation of telehealth clinics and increase confidence in their use among pregnant women for obstetric care.

Project description:Aims To assess the transfer of patients treated with originator biological therapies to biosimilar products in a large UK tertiary referral hospital reflecting practice within the National Health Service (NHS) using prospectively collected data by a hospital-based registry administered by the Biologics Steering Group (BSG).MethodsWe analysed data collected prospectively in a hospital-based registry in a large NHS tertiary referral hospital in the UK. The registry was administered by the hospital's BSG, which considered requests for patients to remain on or revert to originator products. The registry contained prospectively collected data on patients switching therapy from an originator to a biosimilar. The data included clinical circumstances or rationale for each request, whether it was granted, and the results of clinical reviews at 3-6 months.ResultsIn a 12-month period, we identified 1299 patients who could switch to the respective biosimilar and, of these, 1196 (92%) did so. Of the 260 patients taking infliximab, 250 (96%) switched to infliximab biosimilar; of the 390 patients taking etanercept 50 mg, 298 (76%) switched to etanercept 50 mg biosimilar; and of the 649 patients taking rituximab, 648 (99%) switched to rituximab biosimilar. The BSG received 39 applications: 12 (out of 39) applications were to remain on the originator and 27 (out of 39) were to switch back to the originator. Of the applications to remain on the originator 10 (out of 12) were approved. At 3-6 month review, 2 of these approvals reported continued efficacy, 3 switched to the biosimilar, 3 switched to an alternative therapy and 2 stopped treatment. Two (out of 10) applications were not approved, both applicants reported efficacy with the biosimilar at follow up. Of the 27 applications to switch back to the originator, 16 (out of 27) applications were approved. At 3-6 months, 9 (out of 16) applicants reported regain of efficacy, 6 (out of 16) reported cessation of reported adverse effects and 1 (out of 16) switched to alternative therapy. Eight (out of 27) applications were not approved, and, at point of follow up, 50% reported efficacy with the biosimilar and 50% had switched to an alternative therapy. Three (out of 27) applications were withdrawn by the clinical team as efficacy was achieved with the biosimilar.ConclusionWe have set up a system within a busy NHS clinical practice to successfully switch patients to biosimilars, and established a mechanism to guide decisions on continuing with or reverting back to the originator. Such a system could be of use more broadly within the NHS and other health care systems.