European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
Virtual voice clinics in the COVID-19 era: have they been helpful?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Watters Carolina, Miller Benjamin, Kelly Mairead, Burnay Victoria, Karagama Yakubu, Chevretton Elfy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In response to the coronavirus pandemic, a tertiary combined Laryngology-Speech Therapy voice clinic was converted to a wholly virtual clinic, with consultations carried out via telephone or video. The aim of our mixed method study was to assess (a) how effective are virtual clinics vs face-to-face clinics in progressing patients' care and (b) what is patient satisfaction with virtual consultation methods.
METHODS: Analysis of clinic data from patient databases for both virtual and face-to-face clinics was carried out. A patient satisfaction survey was carried out by 75 of the patients who had attended virtual clinics.
RESULTS: There was statistically a significant difference (p value < 0.01) in the proportion of patients prescribed medical therapy, referred for Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) or listed for surgery in the virtual clinic by comparison to the face-to-face clinic. 75 patients completed the questionnaire. 98% of patients were satisfied overall with the virtual method of consultation. 84% believed they would still benefit from face-to-face review. 83% would like the option of a virtual type of clinic in the future.
CONCLUSION: Our data clearly demonstrates that face-to-face clinics are superior to virtual clinics, with almost no patients progressed to surgery in virtual consultations. Despite this, virtual methods are still valuable, and many patients have meaningful progression of care. In current circumstances, patients have very high satisfaction with virtual consultations and certain groups have been identified as particularly benefiting. Going forward, an ideal clinic may be a hybrid of face-to-face and virtual appointments as clinically indicated.
METHODS: Analysis of clinic data from patient databases for both virtual and face-to-face clinics was carried out. A patient satisfaction survey was carried out by 75 of the patients who had attended virtual clinics.
RESULTS: There was statistically a significant difference (p value < 0.01) in the proportion of patients prescribed medical therapy, referred for Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) or listed for surgery in the virtual clinic by comparison to the face-to-face clinic. 75 patients completed the questionnaire. 98% of patients were satisfied overall with the virtual method of consultation. 84% believed they would still benefit from face-to-face review. 83% would like the option of a virtual type of clinic in the future.
CONCLUSION: Our data clearly demonstrates that face-to-face clinics are superior to virtual clinics, with almost no patients progressed to surgery in virtual consultations. Despite this, virtual methods are still valuable, and many patients have meaningful progression of care. In current circumstances, patients have very high satisfaction with virtual consultations and certain groups have been identified as particularly benefiting. Going forward, an ideal clinic may be a hybrid of face-to-face and virtual appointments as clinically indicated.