Background: Teleneurology has been well described for acute stroke, but outpatient use has been limited. At home, virtual visits have the potential to improve access to neurological care. Introduction: This study reports on the use of a personal device videoconferencing platform for outpatient neurologic follow-up visits. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that identified all virtual neurologic follow-up visits completed by patients ≥18 years at a single institution over 4 years. Virtual visits were conducted by personal smartphone or computer via videoconferencing with a provider. Patients were asked to rate their overall experience with the visit and provider (five-point scale). Travel distance from the institution was calculated using patient's home addresses. Results: Three thousand nine hundred thirteen patients completed 5,581 virtual visits during the study (mean age 49.4 ± 17.0 years, 58.7% female). Number of virtual visits increased from 30 in year 1 to 4,468 in year 4. Virtual visits were completed in all outpatient neurologic subspecialties. A total of 30.1% of patients were local (<50 miles), 25.9% were near regional (50-150 miles), 21.7% were far regional (151-270 miles), and 22.2% were remote (>270 miles). A distance of 1,327,128 miles of travel was prevented across the 5,581 visits. On average, patients rated their overall virtual visit experience 4.7/5 ± 0.89 and rated their provider 4.9/5 ± 0.48. Discussion: Virtual visits prevented a substantial amount of travel and resulted in high patient satisfaction. The sizable proportion of local patients may indicate that teleneurology provides important access for reasons beyond travel distance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing outpatient teleneurology services.
Background: Teleneurology has been well described for acute stroke, but outpatient use has been limited. At home, virtual visits have the potential to improve access to neurological care. Introduction: This study reports on the use of a personal device videoconferencing platform for outpatient neurologic follow-up visits. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that identified all virtual neurologic follow-up visits completed by patients ≥18 years at a single institution over 4 years. Virtual visits were conducted by personal smartphone or computer via videoconferencing with a provider. Patients were asked to rate their overall experience with the visit and provider (five-point scale). Travel distance from the institution was calculated using patient's home addresses. Results: Three thousand nine hundred thirteen patients completed 5,581 virtual visits during the study (mean age 49.4 ± 17.0 years, 58.7% female). Number of virtual visits increased from 30 in year 1 to 4,468 in year 4. Virtual visits were completed in all outpatient neurologic subspecialties. A total of 30.1% of patients were local (<50 miles), 25.9% were near regional (50-150 miles), 21.7% were far regional (151-270 miles), and 22.2% were remote (>270 miles). A distance of 1,327,128 miles of travel was prevented across the 5,581 visits. On average, patients rated their overall virtual visit experience 4.7/5 ± 0.89 and rated their provider 4.9/5 ± 0.48. Discussion: Virtual visits prevented a substantial amount of travel and resulted in high patient satisfaction. The sizable proportion of local patients may indicate that teleneurology provides important access for reasons beyond travel distance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing outpatient teleneurology services.
Entities:
Keywords:
access to care; patient experience; telemedicine; teleneurology; virtual visits
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Alistair M Glidden; Melissa R Holloway; Gretchen L Birbeck; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Timothy M Dall; Michael V Storm; Ritashree Chakrabarti; Oksana Drogan; Christopher M Keran; Peter D Donofrio; Victor W Henderson; Henry J Kaminski; James C Stevens; Thomas R Vidic Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Benjamin P George; Nicholas J Scoglio; Jason I Reminick; Balaraman Rajan; Christopher A Beck; Abraham Seidmann; Kevin M Biglan; E Ray Dorsey Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2012-10
Authors: Christopher A Beck; Denise B Beran; Kevin M Biglan; Cynthia M Boyd; E Ray Dorsey; Peter N Schmidt; Richard Simone; Allison W Willis; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Maya Katz; Caroline M Tanner; Kristen Dodenhoff; Jason Aldred; Julie Carter; Andrew Fraser; Joohi Jimenez-Shahed; Christine Hunter; Meredith Spindler; Suzanne Reichwein; Zoltan Mari; Becky Dunlop; John C Morgan; Dedi McLane; Patrick Hickey; Lisa Gauger; Irene Hegeman Richard; Nicte I Mejia; Grace Bwala; Martha Nance; Ludy C Shih; Carlos Singer; Silvia Vargas-Parra; Cindy Zadikoff; Natalia Okon; Andrew Feigin; Jean Ayan; Christina Vaughan; Rajesh Pahwa; Rohit Dhall; Anhar Hassan; Steven DeMello; Sara S Riggare; Paul Wicks; Meredith A Achey; Molly J Elson; Steven Goldenthal; H Tait Keenan; Ryan Korn; Heidi Schwarz; Saloni Sharma; E Anna Stevenson; William Zhu Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Guangxia Meng; Carrie McAiney; Christopher M Perlman; Ian McKillop; Therese Tisseverasinghe; Helen H Chen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Justin R Abbatemarco; Jennifer Hartman; Marisa McGinley; Robert A Bermel; Adrienne Boissy; Desiree T Chizmadia; Amy B Sullivan; Mary R Rensel Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2021-01-12