Kirk H Waibel1, Richard A Bickel2, Tyson Brown2. 1. Allergy Service, Department of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. Electronic address: kirk.h.waibel.mil@mail.mil. 2. Allergy Service, Division of Medicine, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the framework and potential benefits for using telemedicine have been described, allergy-specific outcomes are often limited or have a narrow focus. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of new and follow-up visits conducted via synchronous telemedicine requiring an in-person visit. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluating synchronous tele-allergy appointments in a hospital-based allergy clinic was performed. RESULTS: A total of 360 unique patients participated in 423 synchronous tele-allergy visits from January 2016 to December 2017; 275 (65.0%) were new consultations, 54% were males, and 118 (28%) visits were for children. Allergic rhinitis (35%), asthma (24%), and food allergy (10%) represented the top 3 diagnoses. New and follow-up tele-allergy visits accounted for 13.1% (275 of 2097) and 10.4% (148 of 1426) of all outpatient visits during the study period, respectively. Sixty-five (23.4%) new patients and 14 (9.5%) follow-up patients were recommended for an in-person appointment (P < .001). Compared with follow-up tele-allergy visits, new visits were more likely to have medication prescribed (64.4% vs 49.0%; P < .002) and laboratory tests ordered (46.2% vs 7.4%; P < .001); there were no differences between new and follow-up tele-allergy visits for mean study observation period (P = .680), subsequent in-person visits conducted on the basis of provider recommendation (P = .120), or telephone consultations (P = .190). One hundred forty (33.1%) patients completed an anonymous satisfaction survey, with 98.8% of patients recommending telehealth and reporting high satisfaction. On the basis of 423 visits from 13 originating sites, patients saved an average of $485 in travel expenses, 438 driving miles, and 2.3 days of work or school per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Coupled with high patient satisfaction and significant time and cost savings, tele-allergy supported most of the new and follow-up visits without an in-person recommendation. Although not all tele-allergy efforts incorporate a synchronous modality with a dedicated patient presenter, allergists should continue to seek opportunities to incorporate synchronous tele-allergy with a trained patient presenter into their clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Although the framework and potential benefits for using telemedicine have been described, allergy-specific outcomes are often limited or have a narrow focus. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of new and follow-up visits conducted via synchronous telemedicine requiring an in-person visit. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluating synchronous tele-allergy appointments in a hospital-based allergy clinic was performed. RESULTS: A total of 360 unique patients participated in 423 synchronous tele-allergy visits from January 2016 to December 2017; 275 (65.0%) were new consultations, 54% were males, and 118 (28%) visits were for children. Allergic rhinitis (35%), asthma (24%), and food allergy (10%) represented the top 3 diagnoses. New and follow-up tele-allergy visits accounted for 13.1% (275 of 2097) and 10.4% (148 of 1426) of all outpatient visits during the study period, respectively. Sixty-five (23.4%) new patients and 14 (9.5%) follow-up patients were recommended for an in-person appointment (P < .001). Compared with follow-up tele-allergy visits, new visits were more likely to have medication prescribed (64.4% vs 49.0%; P < .002) and laboratory tests ordered (46.2% vs 7.4%; P < .001); there were no differences between new and follow-up tele-allergy visits for mean study observation period (P = .680), subsequent in-person visits conducted on the basis of provider recommendation (P = .120), or telephone consultations (P = .190). One hundred forty (33.1%) patients completed an anonymous satisfaction survey, with 98.8% of patients recommending telehealth and reporting high satisfaction. On the basis of 423 visits from 13 originating sites, patients saved an average of $485 in travel expenses, 438 driving miles, and 2.3 days of work or school per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Coupled with high patient satisfaction and significant time and cost savings, tele-allergy supported most of the new and follow-up visits without an in-person recommendation. Although not all tele-allergy efforts incorporate a synchronous modality with a dedicated patient presenter, allergists should continue to seek opportunities to incorporate synchronous tele-allergy with a trained patient presenter into their clinical practice.
Authors: Oliver Pfaar; Ioana Agache; Matteo Bonini; Helen Annaruth Brough; Tomás Chivato; Stefano R Del Giacco; Radoslaw Gawlik; Aslı Gelincik; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Marek Jutel; Ludger Klimek; Edward F Knol; Antti Lauerma; Markus Ollert; Liam O'Mahony; Charlotte G Mortz; Oscar Palomares; Carmen Riggioni; Jürgen Schwarze; Isabel Skypala; María José Torres; Eva Untersmayr; Jolanta Walusiak-Skorupa; Adam Chaker; Mattia Giovannini; Enrico Heffler; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; Cristina Quecchia; Mónica Sandoval-Ruballos; Umit Sahiner; Vesna Tomić Spirić; Montserrat Alvaro-Lozano Journal: Allergy Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 14.710
Authors: Oliver Pfaar; Ludger Klimek; Marek Jutel; Cezmi A Akdis; Jean Bousquet; Heimo Breiteneder; Sharon Chinthrajah; Zuzana Diamant; Thomas Eiwegger; Wytske J Fokkens; Hans-Walter Fritsch; Kari C Nadeau; Robyn E O'Hehir; Liam O'Mahony; Winfried Rief; Vanitha Sampath; Manfred Schedlowski; María José Torres; Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann; De Yun Wang; Luo Zhang; Matteo Bonini; Randolf Brehler; Helen Annaruth Brough; Tomás Chivato; Stefano R Del Giacco; Stephanie Dramburg; Radoslaw Gawlik; Aslı Gelincik; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Valerie Hox; Edward F Knol; Antti Lauerma; Paolo M Matricardi; Charlotte G Mortz; Markus Ollert; Oscar Palomares; Carmen Riggioni; Jürgen Schwarze; Isabel Skypala; Eva Untersmayr; Jolanta Walusiak-Skorupa; Ignacio J Ansotegui; Claus Bachert; Anna Bedbrook; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Luisa Brussino; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Victoria Cardona; Pedro Carreiro-Martins; Alvaro A Cruz; Wienczyslawa Czarlewski; João A Fonseca; Maia Gotua; Tari Haahtela; Juan Carlos Ivancevich; Piotr Kuna; Violeta Kvedariene; Désirée Erlinda Larenas-Linnemann; Amir Hamzah Abdul Latiff; Mika Mäkelä; Mário Morais-Almeida; Joaquim Mullol; Robert Naclerio; Ken Ohta; Yoshitaka Okamoto; Gabrielle L Onorato; Nikolaos G Papadopoulos; Vincenzo Patella; Frederico S Regateiro; Bolesław Samoliński; Charlotte Suppli Ulrik; Sanna Toppila-Salmi; Arunas Valiulis; Maria-Teresa Ventura; Arzu Yorgancioglu; Torsten Zuberbier; Ioana Agache Journal: Allergy Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 14.710