Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has necessitated alterations in provision of health care and how patients access it. Telehealth has replaced traditional face‐to‐face outpatient clinics in an unprecedented manner. This study aimed to assess overall patient and clinician satisfaction with telehealth consultations, to establish acceptability of telehealth during pandemic and non‐pandemic times, and document feedback. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study involving women presenting to a general gynaecology outpatient department was performed. Women who attended for consultation between 13 July and 4 September 2020 were invited to participate in a questionnaire following their telehealth appointment. Clinicians consulting in the outpatient department were invited to complete a questionnaire at the end of the eight‐week study period. Satisfaction, utility and acceptability data were obtained using visual analogue scales (VAS). Results: Twenty‐six out of 56 (46.4%) clinicians and 124/870 (14.3%) patients completed the questionnaire. Patients who responded were older and more likely to have been born in Australia than women who did not (P = 0.0355 and P = 0.005, respectively). Overall patient satisfaction with telehealth was high (median VAS (interquartile range), 8.6 (5.6–9.8)). More women found telehealth to be acceptable during a pandemic than afterward (8.9 vs 6.6, P < 0.0001). Clinicians were less satisfied with telehealth than patients (7.1 vs 8.6, P = 0.02); however, most would be happy to continue using telehealth in non‐pandemic times (7.0 (6.2–9.8)). Conclusion: Telehealth consultations allow provision of gynaecological care at a time when reducing risk of infection to patients and staff is paramount. Telehealth gynaecology consultations are efficient and convenient without significant detriment to patient or clinician satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decision‐making for infants born at 23–25 weeks involves counselling parents about survival and major disability risks. Accurate information is needed for parents to make informed decisions about their baby's care. Aims: To determine if perinatal clinicians had accurate perceptions of outcomes of infants born at 23–25 weeks' gestation, and if accuracy had changed over a decade. Materials and Methods: A web‐based survey was sent to midwives, nurses, neonatologists, and obstetricians working in tertiary and non‐tertiary hospitals, and the neonatal retrieval service in the state of Victoria in 2020. A similar survey had been completed in 2010. Clinicians' estimates of survival and major neurodevelopmental disability rates were compared with true rates for actively managed infants overall, and by infant birthplace and gestational age, and professional workplace and discipline. Accuracy of outcomes was compared between eras. Results: Overall, 165 surveys were received. Participants underestimated survival (absolute mean difference [%] −14.4%; [95% confidence interval (CI) −16.6 to −12.3]; P < 0.001) and overestimated major disability (absolute mean difference 32.7%; [95% CI 29.7 to 35.8]; P < 0.001) rates overall, and at each week of gestation, and were worse for outborn compared with inborn infants. Perceptions of clinicians in tertiary centres were similar to those of non‐tertiary clinicians. Nurses/midwives were more pessimistic, and paediatricians were more optimistic. Clinicians' perceptions of outcome were less accurate in 2020 than in 2010. Conclusions: Most perinatal clinicians underestimate survival and overestimate major disability of infants born at 23–25 weeks' gestation, which may translate into overly pessimistic counselling of parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]