Paige Dean1, Maureen O’Donnell1, Lenny Zhou1, Erik D. Skarsgard1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC (Dean, Skarsgard); the Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC (O’Donnell); the Office of Pediatric Surgical Evaluation and Innovation, Department of Surgery, BC Children’s Hospital (Zhou); and the BC Children’s Hospital, Child Health BC, Vancouver, British Columbia (O’Donnell).
Abstract
Background: In Canada, access to subspecialty surgical services for children imposes inconvenience and financial hardship on geographically remote families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a recently implemented pediatric surgical telehealth pilot program from the family and provider perspectives. Methods: Enabled by an existing telehealth infrastructure for pediatric subspecialty medicine and mental health, a pilot telehealth program for surgical consultation was established by a single surgeon in British Columbia. Following establishment of eligibility criteria, patients from remote communities requiring new consultation or clinical follow-up were offered a telehealth alternative. At the end of the encounter, both the parent and patient (if appropriate) provided feedback via a questionnaire. Provider satisfaction was also assessed via a questionnaire. We estimated costs avoided and analyzed data on pediatric surgery consultation wait time. Results: Between September 2014 and November 2017, 80 patients were seen in 19 remote telehealth centres, 23 as new referrals and 57 in follow-up consultation. Among new referrals, the commonest diagnosis was chest wall deformity. The average travel distance avoided was 705 km, with an estimated direct cost avoidance of $585. Sixty-four families (80%) completed the questionnaire. Almost all (63 [98%]) indicated high overall satisfaction with the telehealth experience. Provider satisfaction was similarly high, in terms of both the technology user interface and clinical effectiveness. Overall pediatric surgical consultation wait times were unaffected. Conclusion: Implementation of telehealth technology in a pediatric surgical practice offered high value to patients/families and, from the provider’s perspective, yielded an acceptable alternative to in-person assessment.
Background: In Canada, access to subspecialty surgical services for children imposes inconvenience and financial hardship on geographically remote families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a recently implemented pediatric surgical telehealth pilot program from the family and provider perspectives. Methods: Enabled by an existing telehealth infrastructure for pediatric subspecialty medicine and mental health, a pilot telehealth program for surgical consultation was established by a single surgeon in British Columbia. Following establishment of eligibility criteria, patients from remote communities requiring new consultation or clinical follow-up were offered a telehealth alternative. At the end of the encounter, both the parent and patient (if appropriate) provided feedback via a questionnaire. Provider satisfaction was also assessed via a questionnaire. We estimated costs avoided and analyzed data on pediatric surgery consultation wait time. Results: Between September 2014 and November 2017, 80 patients were seen in 19 remote telehealth centres, 23 as new referrals and 57 in follow-up consultation. Among new referrals, the commonest diagnosis was chest wall deformity. The average travel distance avoided was 705 km, with an estimated direct cost avoidance of $585. Sixty-four families (80%) completed the questionnaire. Almost all (63 [98%]) indicated high overall satisfaction with the telehealth experience. Provider satisfaction was similarly high, in terms of both the technology user interface and clinical effectiveness. Overall pediatric surgical consultation wait times were unaffected. Conclusion: Implementation of telehealth technology in a pediatric surgical practice offered high value to patients/families and, from the provider’s perspective, yielded an acceptable alternative to in-person assessment.
Authors: Eli X Bator; Joseph M Gleason; Armando J Lorenzo; Niki Kanaroglou; Walid A Farhat; Darius J Bägli; Martin A Koyle Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Jose Diaz-Miron; Sarah Ogle; Alex Kaizer; Shannon N Acker; Kyle O Rove; Thomas H Inge Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Sandra Chrapah; Mirna Becevic; Karla T Washington; Lincoln R Sheets; Emmanuelle Wallach; Rebecca Chitima; Elizabeth Malm-Buatsi Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2021-01-13
Authors: Alise K Murray; Rose B McGee; Roya M Mostafavi; Xiaoqing Wang; Zhaohua Lu; Jessica M Valdez; Michael A Terao; Kim E Nichols Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Rose-Marie Lindkvist; Annica Sjöström-Strand; Kajsa Landgren; Björn A Johnsson; Pernilla Stenström; Inger Kristensson Hallström Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.390