Background and Purpose: Describe an inpatient teleneurology consultation service novel to our hospital system, and capture feedback from patients, ordering providers, and consulting neurologists. Methods: A single cohort of teleneurology consult patients was surveyed via telephone. Ordering and consulting providers completed online surveys. Quantitative survey data was reported using descriptive statistics and free-response survey data was summarized. Patient demographics and consult data were gathered via retrospective chart review. Results: Telephone survey was obtained from 25 of 53 patients receiving teleneurology consults from June 1-September 30, 2020. Patient-reported benefits included better understanding of condition (72%) and ability to remain close to home. Online surveys were completed by 11 ordering providers and by consulting neurologists on 20 telemedicine encounters. Ordering providers reported they were likely to use the service again (98.7%), agreed it added value to patient care (91%) and was valued by patients (82%), with concern for missed diagnosis (46%) and potential patient transfer (36%) without the service. In contrast, fewer consulting neurologists predicted need for transfer (5%) or missed diagnosis (10%) in the absence of teleneurology, though 20% indicated that length of stay may increase without the service. Conclusion: We confirm feasibility of an inpatient teleneurology service run by an academic medical center. Satisfaction was high among all key stakeholders, with few transfers to a tertiary care center. This service is valuable to patients, ordering providers, and potentially the hospital network, as a community based care model of neurological care, centered on the needs of the patient and hospitalist.
Background and Purpose: Describe an inpatient teleneurology consultation service novel to our hospital system, and capture feedback from patients, ordering providers, and consulting neurologists. Methods: A single cohort of teleneurology consult patients was surveyed via telephone. Ordering and consulting providers completed online surveys. Quantitative survey data was reported using descriptive statistics and free-response survey data was summarized. Patient demographics and consult data were gathered via retrospective chart review. Results: Telephone survey was obtained from 25 of 53 patients receiving teleneurology consults from June 1-September 30, 2020. Patient-reported benefits included better understanding of condition (72%) and ability to remain close to home. Online surveys were completed by 11 ordering providers and by consulting neurologists on 20 telemedicine encounters. Ordering providers reported they were likely to use the service again (98.7%), agreed it added value to patient care (91%) and was valued by patients (82%), with concern for missed diagnosis (46%) and potential patient transfer (36%) without the service. In contrast, fewer consulting neurologists predicted need for transfer (5%) or missed diagnosis (10%) in the absence of teleneurology, though 20% indicated that length of stay may increase without the service. Conclusion: We confirm feasibility of an inpatient teleneurology service run by an academic medical center. Satisfaction was high among all key stakeholders, with few transfers to a tertiary care center. This service is valuable to patients, ordering providers, and potentially the hospital network, as a community based care model of neurological care, centered on the needs of the patient and hospitalist.
Authors: Eyad Almallouhi; Sami Al Kasab; Jillian B Harvey; Kit N Simpson; Nancy Turner; Ellen Debenham; Christine A Holmstedt Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Vanja C Douglas; Brian J Scott; Geraldine Berg; William D Freeman; S Andrew Josephson Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Patricia Commiskey; Arash Afshinnik; Elizabeth Cothren; Toby Gropen; Ifeanyi Iwuchukwu; Bethany Jennings; Harold C McGrade; Julia Mora-Guillot; Vivek Sabharwal; Gabriel A Vidal; Richard M Zweifler; Kenneth Gaines Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Lawrence R Wechsler; Bart M Demaerschalk; Lee H Schwamm; Opeolu M Adeoye; Heinrich J Audebert; Christopher V Fanale; David C Hess; Jennifer J Majersik; Karin V Nystrom; Mathew J Reeves; Wayne D Rosamond; Jeffrey A Switzer Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jaime M Hatcher-Martin; Jamie Lynn Adams; Eric R Anderson; Riley Bove; Tamika M Burrus; Mahan Chehrenama; Mary Dolan O'Brien; Dawn S Eliashiv; Deniz Erten-Lyons; Barbara S Giesser; Lauren R Moo; Pushpa Narayanaswami; Marvin A Rossi; Madhu Soni; Nauman Tariq; Jack W Tsao; Bert B Vargas; Scott A Vota; Scott R Wessels; Hannah Planalp; Raghav Govindarajan Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kelly Harper; Megan McLeod; Summer K Brown; Georgia Wilson; Maxim Turchan; Emily M Gittings; Derek Riebau; Mark Baker; Eli Zimmerman; David Charles Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 1.759
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