BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adoption and perceived utility of video visits for new and return patient encounters in ambulatory neurology subspecialties. METHODS: Video visits were launched in an academic, multi-subspecialty, ambulatory neurology clinic in March 2020. Adoption of video visits for new and return patient visits was assessed using clinician-level scheduling data from March 22 to May 16, 2020. Perceived utility of video visits was explored via a clinician survey and semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients/caregivers. Findings were compared across 5 subspecialties and 2 visit types (new vs return). RESULTS: Video visits were adopted rapidly; all clinicians (n = 65) integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 weeks, and 92% of visits were conducted via video, although this varied by subspecialty. Utility of video visits was higher for return than new patient visits, as indicated by surveyed (n = 48) and interviewed clinicians (n = 30), aligning with adoption patterns. Compared with in-person visits, clinicians believed that it was easier to achieve a similar physical examination, patient-clinician rapport, and perceived quality of care over video for return rather than new patient visits. Of the 25 patients/caregivers interviewed, most were satisfied with the care provided via video, regardless of visit type, with the main limitation being the physical examination. DISCUSSION: Teleneurology was robustly adopted for both new and return ambulatory neurology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Return patient visits were preferred over new patient visits, but both were feasible. These results provide a foundation for developing targeted guidelines for sustaining teleneurology in ambulatory care.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adoption and perceived utility of video visits for new and return patient encounters in ambulatory neurology subspecialties. METHODS: Video visits were launched in an academic, multi-subspecialty, ambulatory neurology clinic in March 2020. Adoption of video visits for new and return patient visits was assessed using clinician-level scheduling data from March 22 to May 16, 2020. Perceived utility of video visits was explored via a clinician survey and semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients/caregivers. Findings were compared across 5 subspecialties and 2 visit types (new vs return). RESULTS: Video visits were adopted rapidly; all clinicians (n = 65) integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 weeks, and 92% of visits were conducted via video, although this varied by subspecialty. Utility of video visits was higher for return than new patient visits, as indicated by surveyed (n = 48) and interviewed clinicians (n = 30), aligning with adoption patterns. Compared with in-person visits, clinicians believed that it was easier to achieve a similar physical examination, patient-clinician rapport, and perceived quality of care over video for return rather than new patient visits. Of the 25 patients/caregivers interviewed, most were satisfied with the care provided via video, regardless of visit type, with the main limitation being the physical examination. DISCUSSION: Teleneurology was robustly adopted for both new and return ambulatory neurology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Return patient visits were preferred over new patient visits, but both were feasible. These results provide a foundation for developing targeted guidelines for sustaining teleneurology in ambulatory care.
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Lisa M Deuel; Tiffini S Voss; Kara Finnigan; Benjamin P George; Sheelah Eason; David Miller; Jason I Reminick; Anna Appler; Joyce Polanowicz; Lucy Viti; Sandy Smith; Anthony Joseph; Kevin M Biglan Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Scott N Grossman; Steve C Han; Laura J Balcer; Arielle Kurzweil; Harold Weinberg; Steven L Galetta; Neil A Busis Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Meredith Achey; Jason L Aldred; Noha Aljehani; Bastiaan R Bloem; Kevin M Biglan; Piu Chan; Esther Cubo; E Ray Dorsey; Christopher G Goetz; Mark Guttman; Anhar Hassan; Suketu M Khandhar; Zoltan Mari; Meredith Spindler; Caroline M Tanner; Pieter van den Haak; Richard Walker; Jayne R Wilkinson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Rachel Blue; Andrew I Yang; Cecilia Zhou; Emma De Ravin; Clare W Teng; Gabriel R Arguelles; Vincent Huang; Connor Wathen; Stephen P Miranda; Paul Marcotte; Neil R Malhotra; William C Welch; John Y K Lee Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson; Rebecca Miller-Kuhlmann; Samantha M R Kling; Donn W Garvert; Cati G Brown-Johnson; Anna Sophia Lestoquoy; Mae-Richelle Verano; Laurice Yang; Jessica Falco-Walter; Jonathan G Shaw; Steven M Asch; Carl A Gold; Marcy Winget Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stacie Vilendrer; Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson; Steven M Asch; Cati G Brown-Johnson; Samantha M R Kling; Jonathan G Shaw; Marcy Winget; David B Larson Journal: Learn Health Syst Date: 2022-08-23