Dataset Information

A Quantitative and Qualitative Study on Patient and Physician Perceptions of Nephrology Telephone Consultation During COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 required rapid adoption of virtual modalities to provide care for patients with a chronic disease. Care was initially provided by telephone, which has not been evaluated for its effectiveness by patients and providers. This study reports patients' and nephrologists' perceptions and preferences surrounding telephone consultation in a chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinic.

Objective

To evaluate patient and physician perspectives on the key advantages and disadvantages of telephone consultations in a nephrology out-patient clinic setting.

Design

Cross-sectional observational survey study.

Setting

General nephrology clinic and a multidisciplinary kidney care clinic in London, Ontario, Canada.

Participants

Patients with CKD who were fluent in English and participated in at least one telephone consultation with a nephrologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and measurements

Nephrologists' and participants' input facilitated the development of both patient and nephrologist surveys. Participants provided self-reported measures in 5 domains of satisfaction: user experience, technical quality, perceived effectiveness on well-being, perceived usefulness, and effect on interaction. Nephrologists provided self-reported measures within 6 categories: general experience, time management, medication changes, quality of care, job satisfaction, and challenges/strengths. Descriptive statistics were used to present data. Content analysis was performed on 2 open-ended responses.

Results

Of the 372 participants recruited, 235 participated in the survey (63% response). In all, 79% of the participants were ≥65 years old and 91% were white. Telephone consultation was a comfortable experience for 68%, and 73% felt it to be a safer alternative during the pandemic. Although 65% perceived no changes to health care access, most reported spending less time and fewer resources on transit and parking. Disadvantages to telephone consultation included a lack of physical examination and reduced patient-physician rapport. Eleven of 14 nephrologists were surveyed, with most reporting confidence in the use of telephone consultation. Physician barriers to telephone consultation included challenges with communications and lack of technology to support telephone clinics.

Limitations

Our survey included a majority of older, white participants, which may not be generalizable to other participants particularly those of other ages and ethnicity.

Conclusion

Although both patients and nephrologists adapted to telephone consultations, there remain opportunities to further explore populations and situations that would be better facilitated with an in-person visit. Future research in virtual care will require measurement of health care outcomes and economics.

Trial registration

Not applicable as this was a survey.

SUBMITTER: Heyck Lee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744158 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects.MethodsWe conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English.InterpretationOur study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to quantitatively assess stress, anxiety and obsessive thinking related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and qualitatively appraise perceptions in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used mixed-methods design in patients referred for CR in 2 centres which delivered uninterrupted service during COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and in-person interviews (combination of a priori questions and probing) were used to evaluate patient experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.ResultsIn total, 109 patients (mean age 59 ± 10, 20% women) were included in quantitative part and in 30 of them we conducted the in-person interviews. About a quarter of patients met HADS threshold for anxiety and depression while CAS and OCS results demonstrated extremely low possibility of coronavirus related dysfunctional thinking (3%) and anxiety (2%). The CSS indicated the most prevalent concerns were related to COVID-19 vaccines safety (60%) and fear of getting infected (60%). During interviews, patients perceived the CR as well as health care providers as safe, trustworthy and with enough support to avoid or manage COVID-19 related health risks.ConclusionsOverall, patients reported AMI affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 related stress and anxiety were relatively low and mostly related to general views of infectious disease. CR was perceived safe and trustworthy in terms of primary disease and COVID-19.Lay summaryThis mixed-method study included 109 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 and focused on their experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.-Patients reported acute myocardial infarction affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic.-The COVID-19 related concerns were mostly related to general views of infectious disease (vaccine safety, fear of getting infected) whilst cardiac rehabilitation was perceived safe and trustworthy environment during COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundA new patient monitoring technology called Visual Patient, which transforms numerical and waveform data into a virtual model (an avatar) of the monitored patient, has been shown to improve the perception of vital signs compared to conventional patient monitoring. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions of potential future users regarding the new technology, we have analyzed the answers of two large groups of anesthetists using two different study methods.MethodsFirst, we carried out a qualitative analysis guided by the "consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research" checklist. For this analysis, we interviewed 128 anesthesiologists, asking: "Where do you see advantages in Visual Patient monitoring?" and afterward identified major and minor themes in their answers. In a second study, an online survey with 38 anesthesiologists at two different institutions, we added a quantitative part in which anesthesiologists rated statements based on the themes identified in the prior analysis on an ordinal rating scale.ResultsWe identified four high-level themes: "quick situation recognition," "intuitiveness," "unique design characteristics," and "potential future uses," and eight subthemes. The quantitative questions raised for each major theme were: 1. "The Visual Patient technology enabled me to get a quick overview of the situation." (63% of the participants agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 2. "I found the Visual Patient technology to be intuitive and easy to learn." (82% agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 3. "The visual design features of the Visual Patient technology (e.g., the avatar representation) are not helpful for patient monitoring." (11% agreed to this statement). 4. "I think the Visual Patient technology might be helpful for non-monitor experts (e.g., surgeons) in the healthcare system." (53% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed).ConclusionThis mixed method study provides evidence that the included anesthesiologists considered the new avatar-based technology to be intuitive and easy to learn and that the technology enabled them to get an overview of the situation quickly. Only a few users considered the avatar presentation to be unhelpful for patient monitoring and about half think it might be useful for non-experts.

Project description:ObjectivePeople with chronic conditions are known to be vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to describe patients' lived experiences, challenges faced by people with chronic conditions, their coping strategies, and the social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting and participantsWe conducted a qualitative study using a syndemic framework to understand the patients' experiences of chronic disease care, challenges faced during the lockdown, their coping strategies and mitigators during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of socioecological and biological factors. A diverse sample of 41 participants with chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes, stroke and cardiovascular diseases) from four sites (Delhi, Haryana, Vizag and Chennai) in India participated in semistructured interviews. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, translated, anonymised and coded using MAXQDA software. We used the framework method to qualitatively analyse the COVID-19 pandemic impacts on health, social and economic well-being.ResultsParticipant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic were categorised into four themes: challenges faced during the lockdown, experiences of the participants diagnosed with COVID-19, preventive measures taken and lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of participants faced difficulties in accessing healthcare while a few reported using teleconsultations. Most participants reported adverse economic impact of the pandemic which led to higher reporting of anxiety and stress. Participants who tested COVID-19 positive reported experiencing discrimination and stigma from neighbours. All participants reported taking essential preventive measures.ConclusionPeople with chronic conditions experienced a confluence (reciprocal effect) of COVID-19 pandemic and chronic diseases in the context of difficulty in accessing healthcare, sedentary lifestyle and increased stress and anxiety. Patients' lived experiences during the pandemic provide important insights to inform effective transition to a mixed realm of online consultations and 'distanced' physical clinic visits.

Project description:Background:The Allergy Patient Identification for Immunotherapy (AsPIRe) program was a parallel physician and patient survey. The objectives were to examine physician and patient perceptions of seasonal allergy symptoms and their impact on patients, and to examine patient and physician attitudes to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for seasonal allergies. AsPIRe was led by a steering committee and received research ethics board clearance from Queen's University. Methods:Allergists (17) from across Canada enrolled in the AsPIRe program and completed an on-line survey to collect demographic information and baseline perceptions. Allergists then recruited patients and completed paper-based parallel physician and patient questionnaires. Patients received an AIT informational booklet with their questionnaire. Patients who were AIT-naïve with no contraindication to AIT and 12 years of age and older met the inclusion criteria. Results:The survey was in field from February 2018 to June 2018. A total of 141 allergist surveys and 136 patient surveys were completed. Mean age of patients was 30 years old (range 12-70). Fifty-seven percent of patients reported prior knowledge of AIT. Seventy-two percent of patients reported seasonal allergies of longer than 5 years duration and in this subset of patients, 46% were at their first allergist visit. Seventy-three percent of all patients indicated they would be likely or very likely to try sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), if recommended by their allergist compared to 36% for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Conversely, 10% of patients reported they would be unlikely or very unlikely to try SLIT compared to 46% of patients who would be unlikely or very unlikely to try SCIT if recommended by their allergist. Conclusions:In this particular study cohort, there was a gap in perception between allergists and their patients as to the impact of allergy symptoms on daily life. Patients reported being more frequently impacted vs. their physician's assessment. When asked about preference for AIT options, Canadian patients reported they were more likely to follow their allergists' recommendation for initiation of SLIT compared to SCIT.

Project description:ObjectiveApproximately fifteen million women in the United States live > 50 miles from a gynecologic oncologist. Telemedical technology allows patients' local physicians to consult with subspecialist gynecologic oncologists without burdening patients with unnecessary in-person visits. Although critical to adoption of this technology, physicians' input into implementation of clinician-to-clinician consultation has not been sought. We therefore gathered feedback about experiences with referrals, communication, and openness to telemedical consultation from gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists.MethodsWe recruited gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists from practices serving rural patients to participate in semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework guided the interviews. Questions focused on factors influencing adoption and implementation of clinician-to-clinician telemedicine. Interviews were conducted via WebEx, recorded, and transcribed. Two investigators coded interviews using the combined frameworks and identified salient themes.ResultsWe conducted 11 interviews (6 gynecologic oncologists, 3 gynecologists, 2 medical oncologists) and identified themes encompassing communication burnout, barriers to sharing patient information, need for further logistical information, and potential benefits to patients.ConclusionsClinician-to-clinician telemedicine may improve access to gynecologic cancer care by decreasing barriers to subspecialty expertise while simultaneously benefiting referring and consultant clinicians through improved identification and workup of patients who may need in-person consultation. To optimize desired outcomes, telemedical consultation must allow for communication of relevant patient information and records and easy integration into clinical workflow. Importantly, clinicians must perceive the consultation as improving patients' access to specialty care.