Search

ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.

BackgroundDelivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited.Materials and methodsConnect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study.ResultsDuring recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year.ConclusionsAmong individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet.

The objective of this study was to examine a remote method for maintaining long-term contact with Parkinson's disease (PD) patients participating in clinical studies. Long-term follow-up of PD patients is needed to fill critical information gaps on progression, biomarkers, and treatment. Prospective in-person assessment can be costly and may be impossible for some patients. Remote assessment using mail and telephone contact may be a practical follow-up method. Patients enrolled in the multi-center Longitudinal and Biomarker Study in Parkinson's Disease (LABS-PD) in-person follow-up study in 2006 were invited to enroll in Follow-up of Persons With Neurologic Diseases (FOUND), which is overseen by a single center under a separate, central institutional review board protocol. FOUND uses mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews to assess PD status. FOUND follow-up continued when LABS-PD in-person visits ended in 2011. Retention and agreement between remote and in-person assessments were determined. In total, 422 of 499 (84.5%) of eligible patients volunteered, AND 96% of participants were retained. Of 60 patients who withdrew consent from LABS-PD, 51 were retained in FOUND. Of 341 patients who were active in LABS-PD, 340 were retained in FOUND (99.7%) when the in-person visits ceased. Exact agreement between remote and in-person assessments was ≥ 80% for diagnosis, disease features (eg, dyskinesias), and PD medication. Correlation between expert-rated and self-reported Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, which were examined at times separated by several months, was moderate or substantial for most items. Retention was excellent using remote follow-up of research participants with PD, providing a safety net when combined with in-person visits, and also is effective as a stand-alone assessment method, providing a useful alternative when in-person evaluation is not feasible.