BACKGROUND: Telemedicine in an ambulatory surgical population remains incompletely evaluated.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient encounters in the outpatient setting using video visit (VV) technology compared to traditional office visits (OVs).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From June 2013 to March 2014, 55 prescreened men with a history of prostate cancer were prospectively randomized. VVs, with the patient at home or at work, were included in the outpatient clinic calendar of urologists.
INTERVENTION: Remote VV versus traditional OV.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: An equivalence analysis was used to assess the primary outcome, visit efficiency as measured by time studies. Secondary outcomes were patient/provider satisfaction and costs.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 28 VVs and 27 OVs. VVs were equivalent in efficiency to relative to OVs, as measured by patient-provider face time (mean 14.5 vs 14.3min; p=0.96), patient wait time (18.4 vs 13.0min; p=0.20), and total time devoted to care (17.9 vs 17.8min; p=0.97). There were no significant differences in patient perception of visit confidentiality, efficiency, education quality, or overall satisfaction. VVs incurred lower costs, including distance traveled (median 0 vs 95 miles), travel time (0 vs 95min), missed work (0 vs 1 d), and money spent on travel ($0 vs $48; all p< 0.0001). There was a high level of urologist satisfaction for both VVs (88%) and OVs (90%). The major limitation was sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: VV in the ambulatory postprostatectomy setting may have a future role in health care delivery models. We found equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, but significantly reduced patient costs for VV compared to OV. Further prospective analyses are warranted.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with surgically treated prostate cancer, we evaluated the utility of remote video visits compared to office visits for outpatient consultation with a urologist. Video visits were associated with equivalent efficiency, similar satisfaction, and significantly lower patient costs when compared to office visits. We conclude that video visits may have a future role in health care delivery models.
Viers BR, Lightner DJ, Rivera ME, Tollefson MK, Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH, O'Neil DA, Hamilton RL, Gardner MR, Bundrick M, Jenkins SM, Pruthi S, Frank I, Gettman MT. Are you the author?
Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Center for Innovation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Reference: Eur Urol. 2015 Apr 18. pii: S0302-2838(15)00304-8.