OBJECTIVES: To compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person follow-up appointments for orthopedic trauma. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial (pilot study). SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. Eight patients who had telemedicine follow-up appointments and 9 who had in-person follow-up visits were included in a per-protocol analysis. In the telemedicine group, 2 patients left the study because of nonadherence, 1 patient withdrew because of a weak Internet connection, and 1 patient sustained an open fracture. Three control patients left the study because of nonadherence. INTERVENTION: The patients had 4 follow-up appointments during a 6-month period. Patients either had their 6-week and 6-month follow-ups through video calls or in the clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: After 6-week and 6-month follow-up appointments, the patients were given survey questions that were developed using literature-supported methods to compare follow-up experiences. The patients were monitored for complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person clinic visits (telemedicine: 89% satisfied; control: 100% satisfied; P = 0.74). Zero percent of patients in the telemedicine group took time off their work for their appointment compared with 55.6% in the control (P = 0.03). Telemedicine patients spent significantly less time on their visits (P = 0.01). The majority of the patients in the telemedicine group reported clear visual (87.5%) and sound quality (100%) through and agreed to future follow-up visits through telemedicine (75.0%). One patient in each group developed complications. CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine may be a viable alternative to some in-person clinic visits because of similar measures of patient satisfaction but with significantly less time and distance traveled. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person follow-up appointments for orthopedic trauma. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial (pilot study). SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. Eight patients who had telemedicine follow-up appointments and 9 who had in-person follow-up visits were included in a per-protocol analysis. In the telemedicine group, 2 patients left the study because of nonadherence, 1 patient withdrew because of a weak Internet connection, and 1 patient sustained an open fracture. Three control patients left the study because of nonadherence. INTERVENTION: The patients had 4 follow-up appointments during a 6-month period. Patients either had their 6-week and 6-month follow-ups through video calls or in the clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: After 6-week and 6-month follow-up appointments, the patients were given survey questions that were developed using literature-supported methods to compare follow-up experiences. The patients were monitored for complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person clinic visits (telemedicine: 89% satisfied; control: 100% satisfied; P = 0.74). Zero percent of patients in the telemedicine group took time off their work for their appointment compared with 55.6% in the control (P = 0.03). Telemedicine patients spent significantly less time on their visits (P = 0.01). The majority of the patients in the telemedicine group reported clear visual (87.5%) and sound quality (100%) through and agreed to future follow-up visits through telemedicine (75.0%). One patient in each group developed complications. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine may be a viable alternative to some in-person clinic visits because of similar measures of patient satisfaction but with significantly less time and distance traveled. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Rebecca L Gunter; Skyler Chouinard; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Jason T Wiseman; Sam Clarkson; Kyla Bennett; Caprice C Greenberg; K Craig Kent Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Cort D Lawton; Stephanie Swensen-Buza; Jakob F Awender; Sridhar Pinnamaneni; Joseph D Lamplot; Warren K Young; Scott A Rodeo; Danyal H Nawabi; Samuel A Taylor; Joshua S Dines Journal: HSS J Date: 2021-02-21
Authors: David S Portney; Rohan Ved; Vahagn Nikolian; Andrea Wei; Tom Buchmueller; Brad Killaly; Hasan B Alam; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Mhealth Date: 2020-10-05
Authors: Alexander F Haddad; John F Burke; Praveen V Mummaneni; Andrew K Chan; Michael M Safaee; John J Knightly; Rory R Mayer; Brenton H Pennicooke; Anthony M Digiorgio; Philip R Weinstein; Aaron J Clark; Dean Chou; Sanjay S Dhall Journal: Neurospine Date: 2021-06-30