Search

Objective: To examine differences between telephone and video-televisits and identify whether visit modality is associated with satisfaction in an urban, academic general urology practice., Methods: A cross sectional analysis of patients who completed a televisit at our urology practice (summer 2020) was performed. A Likert-based satisfaction telephone survey was offered to patients within 7 days of their televisit. Patient demographics, televisit modality (telephone vs video), and outcomes of the visit (eg follow-up visit scheduled, orders placed) were retrospectively abstracted from each chart and compared between the telephone and video cohorts. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate variables associated with satisfaction while controlling for potential confounders., Results: A total of 269 patients were analyzed. 73% (196/269) completed a telephone televisit. Compared to the video cohort, the telephone cohort was slightly older (mean 58.8 years vs. 54.2 years, P = .03). There were no significant differences in the frequency of orders placed for medication changes, labs, imaging, or for in-person follow-up visits within 30 days between cohorts. Survey results showed overall 84.7% patients were satisfied, and there was no significant difference between the telephone and video cohorts. Visit type was not associated with satisfaction on multivariable analyses, while use of an interpreter [OR:8.13 (1.00-65.94); P = .05], labs ordered [OR:2.74 (1.12-6.70); P = .03] and female patient gender [OR:2.28 (1.03-5.03); P = .04] were significantly associated with satisfaction., Conclusion: Overall, most patients were satisfied with their televisit. Additionally, telephone- and video-televisits were similar regarding patient opinions, patient characteristics, and visit outcome. Efforts to increase access and coverage of telehealth, particularly telephone-televisits, should continue past the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate patient satisfaction and savings, and compare visit outcomes based on chief complaint (CC) of women presenting for a televisit to a female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) clinic at an urban academic center., Methods: A cross-sectional study of women completing a televisit with an FPMRS specialist at our institution from June 19, 2020 to July 17, 2020 was conducted. A telephone questionnaire was administered to patients to assess satisfaction and savings (travel costs/time avoided). Electronic medical records were reviewed to collect patient demographics and comorbidities, CC, and televisit outcomes (e.g., face-to-face (F2F) exam scheduled, orders placed). Logistic regression was used to analyze predictors of satisfaction and need for F2F follow-up., Results: One hundred eighty-seven of 290 (64.5%) women called completed the survey, of whom 168 (89.8%) were satisfied with their televisit. Eighty-eight (48.1%) saved at least an hour and 54 (28.9%) saved more than $25 on transportation. There were no significant associations between patient characteristics, CC, or televisit outcomes and satisfaction. Ninety-nine (52.9%) televisits resulted in F2F follow-up, with CC of prolapse (odds ratio [OR] = 4.2 (1.7-10.3); p = 0.002), new patient (OR = 2.2 (1.2-4.2); p = 0.01), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 3.9 (1.2-13.6); p=.03) as significant predictors., Conclusion: Most patients were satisfied with FPMRS televisits at our urban academic center. Televisits resulted in patient travel time and cost savings. Women presenting with prolapse and for new patient visits would likely benefit from initial F2F visits instead of televisits. Televisits are an important mode of health care and in some cases can replace F2F visits., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)