Literature DB >> 35621285

Perception and satisfaction of patients after telemedicine urology consultations: A matched analysis with physicians' perspective.

Bruno Turcotte1, Lynda Bélanger2,3, Anne-Sophie Blais1, Annie-Claude Blouin1, Stéphane Bolduc1, Amélie Bolduc-Mokhtar2, Michel Bureau1, Yves Caumartin1, Jonathan Cloutier1, Marie-Pier Deschênes-Rompré1, Thierry Dujardin1, Yves Fradet1, Noémie Gaudreau1, Louis Lacombe1, Katherine Moore1, Fannie Morin1, Geneviève Nadeau1, Sophie Paquet1, Francis Simard1, David Simonyan4, Frédéric Soucy1, Rabi Tiguert1, Paul Toren1, Michele Lodde1, Frédéric Pouliot1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: During the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation.
METHODS: We contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS).
RESULTS: Of 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35621285      PMCID: PMC9565072          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7819

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   2.052


  18 in total

1.  Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey.

Authors:  J Lee Hargraves; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQ-OHC): data quality, reliability, and validity.

Authors:  Andrew M Garratt; Kirsten Danielsen; Oddvar Forland; Steinar Hunskaar
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 3.  Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  T L Williams; C R May; A Esmail
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.536

4.  Patient satisfaction and patient-centered care: necessary but not equal.

Authors:  Joel M Kupfer; Edward U Bond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kelly B Haskard Zolnierek; M Robin Dimatteo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Alberto Abrate; Riccardo Bartoletti; Alessandro Crestani; Cosimo De Nunzio; Gianluca Giannarini; Andrea Gregori; Giovanni Liguori; Vincenzo Mirone; Nicola Pavan; Roberto M Scarpa; Alchiede Simonato; Carlo Trombetta; Andrea Tubaro; Francesco Porpiglia
Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.720

Review 7.  Bias in patient satisfaction surveys: a threat to measuring healthcare quality.

Authors:  Felipe Dunsch; David K Evans; Mario Macis; Qiao Wang
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2018-04-12

Review 8.  Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Centaine L Snoswell; Monica L Taylor; Tracy A Comans; Anthony C Smith; Leonard C Gray; Liam J Caffery
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment.

Authors:  Flora Tzelepis; Robert W Sanson-Fisher; Alison C Zucca; Elizabeth A Fradgley
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 10.  A Review of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Telemedicine.

Authors:  Mary Nguyen; Morgan Waller; Aarti Pandya; Jay Portnoy
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 4.806

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.