Rhea E Powell1,2, Jeffrey M Henstenburg3, Grace Cooper3, Judd E Hollander3,2, Kristin L Rising4,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. National Academic Center for Telehealth, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Kristin.rising@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Telehealth is a care delivery model that promises to increase the flexibility and reach of health services. Our objective is to describe patient experiences with video visits performed with their established primary care clinicians. METHODS: We constructed semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews with adult patients following video visits with their primary care clinicians at a single academic medical center. Data were analyzed with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 32 eligible patients, 19 were successfully interviewed. All patients reported overall satisfaction with video visits, with the majority interested in continuing to use video visits as an alternative to in-person visits. The primary benefits cited were convenience and decreased costs. Some patients felt more comfortable with video visits than office visits and expressed a preference for receiving future serious news via video visit, because they could be in their own supportive environment. Primary concerns with video visits were privacy, including the potential for work colleagues to overhear conversations, and questions about the ability of the clinician to perform an adequate physical examination. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care video visits are acceptable in a variety of situations. Patients identified convenience, efficiency, communication, privacy, and comfort as domains that are potentially important to consider when assessing video visits vs in-person encounters. Future studies should explore which patients and conditions are best suited for video visits.
PURPOSE: Telehealth is a care delivery model that promises to increase the flexibility and reach of health services. Our objective is to describe patient experiences with video visits performed with their established primary care clinicians. METHODS: We constructed semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews with adult patients following video visits with their primary care clinicians at a single academic medical center. Data were analyzed with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 32 eligible patients, 19 were successfully interviewed. All patients reported overall satisfaction with video visits, with the majority interested in continuing to use video visits as an alternative to in-person visits. The primary benefits cited were convenience and decreased costs. Some patients felt more comfortable with video visits than office visits and expressed a preference for receiving future serious news via video visit, because they could be in their own supportive environment. Primary concerns with video visits were privacy, including the potential for work colleagues to overhear conversations, and questions about the ability of the clinician to perform an adequate physical examination. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care video visits are acceptable in a variety of situations. Patients identified convenience, efficiency, communication, privacy, and comfort as domains that are potentially important to consider when assessing video visits vs in-person encounters. Future studies should explore which patients and conditions are best suited for video visits.
Authors: Adam H Buchanan; Santanu K Datta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Gail P Hollowell; Henry F Beresford; Thomas Freeland; Benjamin Rogers; John Boling; P Kelly Marcom; Martha B Adams Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Caitlin M Cusack; Eric Pan; Julie M Hook; Adam Vincent; David C Kaelber; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2008 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Boyd R Viers; Deborah J Lightner; Marcelino E Rivera; Matthew K Tollefson; Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; R Houston Thompson; Daniel A O'Neil; Rachel L Hamilton; Matthew R Gardner; Mary Bundrick; Sarah M Jenkins; Sandhya Pruthi; Igor Frank; Matthew T Gettman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Farhad Fatehi; Melinda Martin-Khan; Anthony C Smith; Anthony W Russell; Leonard C Gray Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Blythe A Butler; Omar Mesina; George Su; Triveni B DeFries; Malini Nijagal; Courtney R Lyles Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Francesca M Nicosia; Malena J Spar; Alicia Neumann; Molly C Silvestrini; Maureen Barrientos; Rebecca T Brown Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sravisht Iyer; Karim Shafi; Francis Lovecchio; Robert Turner; Todd J Albert; Han Jo Kim; Joel Press; Yoshihiro Katsuura; Harvinder Sandhu; Frank Schwab; Sheeraz Qureshi Journal: HSS J Date: 2021-02-21