Steven Thelen-Perry1, Rohan Ved1, Chad Ellimoottil1,2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine utilization, including use of video visits, is growing rapidly. While much enthusiasm surrounds telemedicine, the successful implementation of video visits within health systems requires providers to evaluate patient's experience with the implemented technology and workflow. METHODS: Twenty patients who completed a video visit in the Department of Urology at Michigan Medicine were contacted and asked if they would be willing to share their experience. Patients underwent a semi-structured telephone interview. Using an interview guide, patients were asked questions about the enrollment process, their overall impression of the visit, and feedback to improve the visit. Interview comments were categorized into three primary themes: usability, quality of the visit, and comparison to a traditional in-clinic visit. RESULTS: Most patients who underwent a urological video visit were highly satisfied with their experience. Most patients also reported being able to join the video visit with minimal issues. However, some patients expressed issues downloading the application and interpreting our educational materials. In regard to quality of the visit, most patients were impressed and pleased. While there was no criticism regarding the picture-quality of the video visit, a few patients reported issues with the audio. It was apparent that quality of video was dependent on quality of the patient's internet connection. When comparing the video visit to a traditional in-clinic visit, patients-especially parents with children at home-found the video visit to be more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that patients were pleased with their urological video visit experience, and there were details about our workflow that would not have been evident without interviews. These findings suggest that while video visits are suitable alternatives to in-clinic appointments at academic medical centers, it is important for providers to obtain direct feedback from patients to identify workflow and technical issues.
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine utilization, including use of video visits, is growing rapidly. While much enthusiasm surrounds telemedicine, the successful implementation of video visits within health systems requires providers to evaluate patient's experience with the implemented technology and workflow. METHODS: Twenty patients who completed a video visit in the Department of Urology at Michigan Medicine were contacted and asked if they would be willing to share their experience. Patients underwent a semi-structured telephone interview. Using an interview guide, patients were asked questions about the enrollment process, their overall impression of the visit, and feedback to improve the visit. Interview comments were categorized into three primary themes: usability, quality of the visit, and comparison to a traditional in-clinic visit. RESULTS: Most patients who underwent a urological video visit were highly satisfied with their experience. Most patients also reported being able to join the video visit with minimal issues. However, some patients expressed issues downloading the application and interpreting our educational materials. In regard to quality of the visit, most patients were impressed and pleased. While there was no criticism regarding the picture-quality of the video visit, a few patients reported issues with the audio. It was apparent that quality of video was dependent on quality of the patient's internet connection. When comparing the video visit to a traditional in-clinic visit, patients-especially parents with children at home-found the video visit to be more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that patients were pleased with their urological video visit experience, and there were details about our workflow that would not have been evident without interviews. These findings suggest that while video visits are suitable alternatives to in-clinic appointments at academic medical centers, it is important for providers to obtain direct feedback from patients to identify workflow and technical issues.
Entities:
Keywords:
Video visits; patient experience; telemedicine; urology
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: Sebastian Bergrath; Daniel Rörtgen; Rolf Rossaint; Stefan K Beckers; Harold Fischermann; Jörg Ch Brokmann; Michael Czaplik; Marc Felzen; Marie-Thérèse Schneiders; Max Skorning Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Juan J Andino; Vinay Guduguntla; Alon Weizer; William W Roberts; Daniela Wittmann; David Miller; Todd M Morgan; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Urology Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Anthony G Del Signore; Rajan Dang; Arjun Yerasi; Alfred M Iloreta; Benjamin D Malkin Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Boyd R Viers; Sandhya Pruthi; Marcelino E Rivera; Daniel A O'Neil; Matthew R Gardner; Sarah M Jenkins; Deborah J Lightner; Matthew T Gettman Journal: Urology Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jacqueline M Soegaard Ballester; Mary F Scott; Lily Owei; Christopher Neylan; C William Hanson; Jon B Morris Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Whitney R Smith; Anthony J Atala; Ryan P Terlecki; Erin E Kelly; Catherine A Matthews Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kevin Shee; Andrew W Liu; Carol Yarbrough; Linda Branagan; Logan Pierce; Anobel Y Odisho Journal: Urology Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 2.633