BACKGROUND:Telemedicine in an ambulatory surgical population remains incompletely evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient encounters in the outpatient setting using video visit (VV) technology compared to traditional office visits (OVs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From June 2013 to March 2014, 55 prescreened men with a history of prostate cancer were prospectively randomized. VVs, with the patient at home or at work, were included in the outpatient clinic calendar of urologists. INTERVENTION: Remote VV versus traditional OV. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: An equivalence analysis was used to assess the primary outcome, visit efficiency as measured by time studies. Secondary outcomes were patient/provider satisfaction and costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 28 VVs and 27 OVs. VVs were equivalent in efficiency to relative to OVs, as measured by patient-provider face time (mean 14.5 vs 14.3min; p=0.96), patient wait time (18.4 vs 13.0min; p=0.20), and total time devoted to care (17.9 vs 17.8min; p=0.97). There were no significant differences in patient perception of visit confidentiality, efficiency, education quality, or overall satisfaction. VVs incurred lower costs, including distance traveled (median 0 vs 95 miles), travel time (0 vs 95min), missed work (0 vs 1 d), and money spent on travel ($0 vs $48; all p<0.0001). There was a high level of urologist satisfaction for both VVs (88%) and OVs (90%). The major limitation was sample size. CONCLUSIONS: VV in the ambulatory postprostatectomy setting may have a future role in health care delivery models. We found equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, but significantly reduced patient costs for VV compared to OV. Further prospective analyses are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with surgically treated prostate cancer, we evaluated the utility of remote video visits compared to office visits for outpatient consultation with a urologist. Video visits were associated with equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, and significantly lower patient costs when compared to office visits. We conclude that video visits may have a future role in health care delivery models.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine in an ambulatory surgical population remains incompletely evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient encounters in the outpatient setting using video visit (VV) technology compared to traditional office visits (OVs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From June 2013 to March 2014, 55 prescreened men with a history of prostate cancer were prospectively randomized. VVs, with the patient at home or at work, were included in the outpatient clinic calendar of urologists. INTERVENTION: Remote VV versus traditional OV. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: An equivalence analysis was used to assess the primary outcome, visit efficiency as measured by time studies. Secondary outcomes were patient/provider satisfaction and costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 28 VVs and 27 OVs. VVs were equivalent in efficiency to relative to OVs, as measured by patient-provider face time (mean 14.5 vs 14.3min; p=0.96), patient wait time (18.4 vs 13.0min; p=0.20), and total time devoted to care (17.9 vs 17.8min; p=0.97). There were no significant differences in patient perception of visit confidentiality, efficiency, education quality, or overall satisfaction. VVs incurred lower costs, including distance traveled (median 0 vs 95 miles), travel time (0 vs 95min), missed work (0 vs 1 d), and money spent on travel ($0 vs $48; all p<0.0001). There was a high level of urologist satisfaction for both VVs (88%) and OVs (90%). The major limitation was sample size. CONCLUSIONS: VV in the ambulatory postprostatectomy setting may have a future role in health care delivery models. We found equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, but significantly reduced patient costs for VV compared to OV. Further prospective analyses are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with surgically treated prostate cancer, we evaluated the utility of remote video visits compared to office visits for outpatient consultation with a urologist. Video visits were associated with equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, and significantly lower patient costs when compared to office visits. We conclude that video visits may have a future role in health care delivery models.
Authors: Nicole R Laferriere; Michele Saruwatari; Xuan-Lan Doan; Kelli B Ishihara; Devin P Puapong; Sidney M Johnson; Russell K Woo Journal: Hawaii J Health Soc Welf Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Rebecca L Gunter; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Shahrose Rahman; Lola Awoyinka; Kyla M Bennett; Sharon M Weber; Caprice C Greenberg; K Craig Kent Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Rhea E Powell; Jeffrey M Henstenburg; Grace Cooper; Judd E Hollander; Kristin L Rising Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Amblessed E Onuma; Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; Jeffery Chakedis; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Brianne Wiemann; Morgan Johnson; Katiuscha Merath; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.982
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: B K Bednarski; T P Nickerson; Y N You; C A Messick; B Speer; V Gottumukkala; M Manandhar; M Weldon; E M Dean; W Qiao; X Wang; G J Chang Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 6.939