Enrico Checcucci1,2,3, Stefano De Luca4, Paolo Alessio4, Paolo Verri4, Stefano Granato4, Sabrina De Cillis4, Daniele Amparore4, Michele Sica4, Federico Piramide4, Alberto Piana4, Gabriele Volpi4, Matteo Manfredi4, Gabriella Balestra5, Riccardo Autorino6, Cristian Fiori4, Francesco Porpiglia4. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. checcu.e@hotmail.it. 2. Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands. checcu.e@hotmail.it. 3. Department of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy. checcu.e@hotmail.it. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. 5. Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 6. Division of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the use of telemedicine with phone-call visits as a practical tool to follow-up with patients affected by urological benign diseases, whose clinic visits had been cancelled during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients were contacted via phone-call and a specific questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health status of these patients and to identify those who needed an "in-person" ambulatory visit due to the worsening of their condition. Secondarily, the patients' perception of a potential shift towards a "telemedicine" approach to the management of their condition and to indirectly evaluate their desire to return to "in-person" clinic visits. RESULTS: 607 were contacted by phone-call. 87.5% (531/607) of the cases showed stability of the symptoms so no clinic in-person or emergency visits were needed. 81.5% (495/607) of patients were more concerned about the risk of contagion than their urological condition. The median score for phone visit comprehensibility and ease of communication of exams was 5/5; whilst patients' perception of phone visits' usefulness was scored 4/5. 53% (322/607) of the interviewees didn't own the basic supports required to be able to perform a real telemedicine consult according to the required standards. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine approach limits the number of unnecessary accesses to medical facilities and represents an important tool for the limitation of the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. However, infrastructures, health workers and patients should reach out to a computerization process to allow a wider diffusion of more advanced forms of telemedicine, such as televisit.
PURPOSE: To assess the use of telemedicine with phone-call visits as a practical tool to follow-up with patients affected by urological benign diseases, whose clinic visits had been cancelled during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Patients were contacted via phone-call and a specific questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health status of these patients and to identify those who needed an "in-person" ambulatory visit due to the worsening of their condition. Secondarily, the patients' perception of a potential shift towards a "telemedicine" approach to the management of their condition and to indirectly evaluate their desire to return to "in-person" clinic visits. RESULTS: 607 were contacted by phone-call. 87.5% (531/607) of the cases showed stability of the symptoms so no clinic in-person or emergency visits were needed. 81.5% (495/607) of patients were more concerned about the risk of contagion than their urological condition. The median score for phone visit comprehensibility and ease of communication of exams was 5/5; whilst patients' perception of phone visits' usefulness was scored 4/5. 53% (322/607) of the interviewees didn't own the basic supports required to be able to perform a real telemedicine consult according to the required standards. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine approach limits the number of unnecessary accesses to medical facilities and represents an important tool for the limitation of the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. However, infrastructures, health workers and patients should reach out to a computerization process to allow a wider diffusion of more advanced forms of telemedicine, such as televisit.
Authors: J Kellogg Parsons; Vicky Newman; James L Mohler; John P Pierce; Electra Paskett; James Marshall Journal: Urology Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Enrico Checcucci; Alessandro Crestani; Alberto Abrate; Francesco Esperto; Nicola Pavan; Cosimo De Nunzio; Antonio Galfano; Gianluca Giannarini; Andrea Gregori; Giovanni Liguori; Riccardo Bartoletti; Francesco Porpiglia; Roberto Mario Scarpa; Alchiede Simonato; Carlo Trombetta; Andrea Tubaro; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: R Campi; D Amparore; E Checcucci; F Claps; J Yuen-Chun Teoh; S Serni; R M Scarpa; F Porpiglia; D M Carrion; J Gomez Rivas; S Loeb; G E Cacciamani; F Esperto Journal: Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-09-11
Authors: Moises Rodriguez Socarrás; Stacy Loeb; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Maria J Ribal; Jarka Bloemberg; James Catto; James N'Dow; Hendrik Van Poppel; Juan Gómez Rivas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael Tobias Schauwinhold; Michelle Schmidt; Jenny W Rudolph; Martin Klasen; Sophie Isabelle Lambert; Alexander Krusch; Lina Vogt; Saša Sopka Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-12
Authors: Giulio Nittari; Demetris Savva; Daniele Tomassoni; Seyed Khosrow Tayebati; Francesco Amenta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.614