Vasiliki Triantafillou1, Eleanor Layfield2, Aman Prasad2, Jie Deng3, Rabie M Shanti1, Jason G Newman1, Karthik Rajasekaran1. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been unprecedented use of telemedicine for otolaryngology ambulatory visits. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine is an important metric, but survey-based questionnaires do not capture the nuances of the patient experience. This study aims to understand head and neck patients' perceptions about telemedicine clinic visits during COVID-19. METHODS: Fifty-six established patients who had video-based telemedicine visits with an otolaryngology-head and neck surgery faculty member between March 25, 2020, and April 24, 2020, completed unstructured telephone interviews. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted to determine the patients' demographic, disease, and treatment information. RESULTS: The primary benefits of telemedicine were accessibility and cost and time savings. Primary limitations included the ability to perform a physical examination. Most patients expressed a willingness to participate in future remote visits if appropriate or necessitated by social circumstances. DISCUSSION: Telemedicine is a disruptive process, and long-term adoption requires understanding patient perception of and satisfaction with telemedicine. Head and neck cancer patients were generally satisfied with telemedicine. The study elucidated patient perceived benefits and limitations of telemedicine. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Continued implementation of telemedicine in otolaryngology-head and neck ambulatory clinics will require consideration of contextual features surrounding the virtual delivery of care, with particular attention to visit appropriateness for telemedicine and social circumstances.
OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been unprecedented use of telemedicine for otolaryngology ambulatory visits. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine is an important metric, but survey-based questionnaires do not capture the nuances of the patient experience. This study aims to understand head and neck patients' perceptions about telemedicine clinic visits during COVID-19. METHODS: Fifty-six established patients who had video-based telemedicine visits with an otolaryngology-head and neck surgery faculty member between March 25, 2020, and April 24, 2020, completed unstructured telephone interviews. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted to determine the patients' demographic, disease, and treatment information. RESULTS: The primary benefits of telemedicine were accessibility and cost and time savings. Primary limitations included the ability to perform a physical examination. Most patients expressed a willingness to participate in future remote visits if appropriate or necessitated by social circumstances. DISCUSSION: Telemedicine is a disruptive process, and long-term adoption requires understanding patient perception of and satisfaction with telemedicine. Head and neck cancerpatients were generally satisfied with telemedicine. The study elucidated patient perceived benefits and limitations of telemedicine. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Continued implementation of telemedicine in otolaryngology-head and neck ambulatory clinics will require consideration of contextual features surrounding the virtual delivery of care, with particular attention to visit appropriateness for telemedicine and social circumstances.
Authors: Janet S Choi; Victoria Yin; Franklin Wu; Neel K Bhatt; Karla O'Dell; Michael Johns Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 2.970
Authors: Sara Izadi-Najafabadi; Lisa McQuarrie; Stuart Peacock; Ross Halperin; Leah Lambert; Craig Mitton; Helen McTaggart-Cowan Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Lucas M Donovan; Ashley C Mog; Kelly N Blanchard; Kate H Magid; Adnan S Syed; Lynette R Kelley; Brian N Palen; Elizabeth C Parsons; Catherine C McCall; William Thompson; Matthew Charlton; Laura J Spece; Susan Kirsh; David H Au; George G Sayre Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 4.324
Authors: Patricia I Jewett; Rachel I Vogel; Rahel Ghebre; Jane Y C Hui; Helen M Parsons; Arpit Rao; Smitha Sagaram; Anne H Blaes Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-11-20 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Victoria White; Alice Bastable; Ilana Solo; Seleena Sherwell; Sangeetha Thomas; Rob Blum; Javier Torres; Natalie Maxwell-Davis; Kathy Alexander; Amanda Piper Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Joe Antoun; Daniel J Brown; Daniel J W Jones; Nicholas C Sangala; Robert J Lewis; Anthony I Shepherd; Melitta A McNarry; Kelly A Mackintosh; Laura Mason; Jo Corbett; Zoe L Saynor Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.390