C Browne1, N F Davis2, E D Mac Craith2, G M Lennon2, D J Galvin2, D W Mulvin2. 1. Department of Urology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. cliodhnabrowne@rcsi.ie. 2. Department of Urology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outpatient department (OPD) clinics account for a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure. We report on a pilot study of a virtual outpatient clinic (VC) for urology patients as an alternative to a general urology clinic review. AIMS: The study aims to assess the safety and cost-effectiveness of a virtual clinic as an alternative to general OPD review. METHODS: A prospective study performed between March 2015 and December 2015 investigated the effectiveness of a VC in our institution. Eligible patients were recruited from general urology outpatient visits, from medical team members and from general practitioners (GP). Data recorded on each VC review included patient demographics, indication for referral to VC, outcome of VC and method of communication with the patient and their GP after the VC. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five patients were registered for the VC. Indications for referral included review of imaging results (n = 136), doctor or patient query (n = 112) and review of laboratory results (n = 67). Outcomes after VC review included general OPD follow-up (n = 134), discharge from urology care (n = 39), referral for urological intervention (n = 29) and referral for radiological investigation (n = 23). VC review prevented 217 OPD clinic visits, saved €17,360 and provided a failsafe mechanism for reviewing investigation results. Two patients booked for OPD review following VC review did not receive appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual clinic is a safe and cost-effective alternative to general OPD review in appropriately selected patients.
BACKGROUND:Outpatient department (OPD) clinics account for a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure. We report on a pilot study of a virtual outpatient clinic (VC) for urology patients as an alternative to a general urology clinic review. AIMS: The study aims to assess the safety and cost-effectiveness of a virtual clinic as an alternative to general OPD review. METHODS: A prospective study performed between March 2015 and December 2015 investigated the effectiveness of a VC in our institution. Eligible patients were recruited from general urology outpatient visits, from medical team members and from general practitioners (GP). Data recorded on each VC review included patient demographics, indication for referral to VC, outcome of VC and method of communication with the patient and their GP after the VC. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five patients were registered for the VC. Indications for referral included review of imaging results (n = 136), doctor or patient query (n = 112) and review of laboratory results (n = 67). Outcomes after VC review included general OPD follow-up (n = 134), discharge from urology care (n = 39), referral for urological intervention (n = 29) and referral for radiological investigation (n = 23). VC review prevented 217 OPD clinic visits, saved €17,360 and provided a failsafe mechanism for reviewing investigation results. Two patients booked for OPD review following VC review did not receive appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual clinic is a safe and cost-effective alternative to general OPD review in appropriately selected patients.
Authors: P B Jacklin; J A Roberts; P Wallace; A Haines; R Harrison; J A Barber; S G Thompson; L Lewis; R Currell; S Parker; P Wainwright Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-07-12
Authors: P Wallace; A Haines; R Harrison; J Barber; S Thompson; P Jacklin; J Roberts; L Lewis; P Wainwright Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Juan Gómez Rivas; Bhaskar Somani; Moises Rodriguez Socarrás; Giancarlo Marra; Ian Pearce; Lars Henningsohn; Patricia Zondervan; Henk van der Poel; Hendrik Van Poppel; James N'Dow; Evangelos Liatsikos; Joan Palou Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-09-28