Daniel Monkowski1, Luther V Rhodes1, Suzanne Templer2, Sharon Kromer3, Jessica Hartner4, Kimberly Pianucci5, Hope Kincaid6. 1. Lehigh Valley Physician Group Infectious Diseases, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania. 2. Medical Education, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 3. Center for Connected Care and Innovation, Allentown, Pennsylvania. 4. 7C Medical Surgical Unit, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania. 5. Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. 6. Network Office of Research and Innovation, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Here, we review our experience of providing inpatient infectious disease (ID) consultations using real-time interactive telemedicine assessments. We sought to obtain a baseline and document trends regarding the use of telemedicine ID (teleID) consults as an adjunct to the standard of care through the time period in which teleID consultations were introduced. METHODS: Data were pulled via manual, retrospective chart reviews of the electronic medical record. Primary outcomes included lengths of stay (LOS), antibiotic usage, and relapse incidences. RESULTS: There were a total of 244 patients at 1 remote hospital site who were provided with ID consultations, either in person, via teleID, or both. Before the availability of teleID (pre-teleID), there were 73 patients transferred for ID consults, while 171 patients were seen via teleID once available. While all 73 patients in the pre-teleID group were transferred from the remote hospital to the hub hospital, only 14 (8.2%) of all remote hospital patients assessed by teleID were transferred. Patient LOS across both facilities decreased when patients were seen via teleID, compared to pre-teleID (P = .0001). The median number of days that patients received antibiotics decreased in the teleID group (median 15, interquartile range [IQR] 9-25), compared to the pre-teleID group (median 19, IQR 11-28), but this decrease was not statistically significant (P = .0770). There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates, although data were lacking because of patients being lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ID telemedicine practice directed at inpatients appears to be a promising route of care.
BACKGROUND: Here, we review our experience of providing inpatient infectious disease (ID) consultations using real-time interactive telemedicine assessments. We sought to obtain a baseline and document trends regarding the use of telemedicine ID (teleID) consults as an adjunct to the standard of care through the time period in which teleID consultations were introduced. METHODS: Data were pulled via manual, retrospective chart reviews of the electronic medical record. Primary outcomes included lengths of stay (LOS), antibiotic usage, and relapse incidences. RESULTS: There were a total of 244 patients at 1 remote hospital site who were provided with ID consultations, either in person, via teleID, or both. Before the availability of teleID (pre-teleID), there were 73 patients transferred for ID consults, while 171 patients were seen via teleID once available. While all 73 patients in the pre-teleID group were transferred from the remote hospital to the hub hospital, only 14 (8.2%) of all remote hospital patients assessed by teleID were transferred. Patient LOS across both facilities decreased when patients were seen via teleID, compared to pre-teleID (P = .0001). The median number of days that patients received antibiotics decreased in the teleID group (median 15, interquartile range [IQR] 9-25), compared to the pre-teleID group (median 19, IQR 11-28), but this decrease was not statistically significant (P = .0770). There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates, although data were lacking because of patients being lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ID telemedicine practice directed at inpatients appears to be a promising route of care.
Authors: Katherine A Meese; Allyson G Hall; Sue S Feldman; Alejandra Colón-López; David A Rogers; Jasvinder A Singh Journal: Telemed Rep Date: 2022-01-10
Authors: Patrick A Massey; Kaylan McClary; Andrew S Zhang; Felix H Savoie; R Shane Barton Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: J M Lombardi; T Bottiglieri; N Desai; K D Riew; V Boddapati; M Weller; C Bourgois; S McChrystal; R A Lehman Journal: Spine J Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Cynthia T Nguyen; Gregory Olson; Mai T Pho; Alison K Lew; David Pitrak; Jina Saltzman; Aniruddha Hazra; Kenneth Pursell; Natasha N Pettit Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Jacqueline Meredith; Jennifer Onsrud; Lisa Davidson; Leigh Ann Medaris; Marc Kowalkowski; Kristin Fischer; Jennifer Priem; Michael Leonard; Lewis McCurdy Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Todd J Vento; John J Veillette; Stephanie S Gelman; Angie Adams; Peter Jones; Katherine Repko; Edward A Stenehjem Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.835