Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2023
Telemedicine vs Face-to-Face for Nursing Home Residents With Acute Presentations: A Noninferiority Study.
Equivalence TrialСтатьяНазвание 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.
Huang Gary Y, Kumar Manoj, Liu Xinsheng, Irwanto Deni, Zhou You, Chirapa Ethel, Xu Ying H, Shulruf Boaz, Chan Daniel K Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine and face-to-face outreach services to nursing homes (NHs) have been used to reduce hospital utilization rates for acute presentations. However, how these modalities compare against each other is unclear. This article examines if the management of acute presentations in NHs with care involving telemedicine is noninferior to care delivered face-to-face.
DESIGN: A noninferiority study was conducted on a prospective cohort. Face-to-face intervention involved on-site assessment by a geriatrician and aged care clinical nurse specialist (CNS). Telemedicine intervention involved on-site assessment by an aged care CNS with telemedicine input by a geriatrician.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 438 NH residents with acute presentations from 17 NHs between November 2021 and June 2022.
METHODS: Between-group differences in proportion of residents successfully managed on-site and mean number of encounters were evaluated using bootstrapped multiple linear regression; 95% CIs were compared against predefined noninferiority margins with noninferiority P values calculated.
RESULTS: In the adjusted models, care involving telemedicine demonstrated noninferiority in the difference in proportion of residents successfully managed on-site (95% CI lower limit -6.2% to -1.4% vs -10% noninferiority margin; P < .001 for noninferiority) but not in the difference in mean number of encounters (95% CI upper limit 1.42 to 1.50 encounters vs 1 encounter noninferiority margin; P = .7 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In our model of care, care that involved telemedicine was noninferior to care delivered face-to-face in managing NH residents with acute presentations on-site. However, additional encounters may be required. Application of telemedicine ought to be tailored to fit the needs and preferences of stakeholders.
DESIGN: A noninferiority study was conducted on a prospective cohort. Face-to-face intervention involved on-site assessment by a geriatrician and aged care clinical nurse specialist (CNS). Telemedicine intervention involved on-site assessment by an aged care CNS with telemedicine input by a geriatrician.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 438 NH residents with acute presentations from 17 NHs between November 2021 and June 2022.
METHODS: Between-group differences in proportion of residents successfully managed on-site and mean number of encounters were evaluated using bootstrapped multiple linear regression; 95% CIs were compared against predefined noninferiority margins with noninferiority P values calculated.
RESULTS: In the adjusted models, care involving telemedicine demonstrated noninferiority in the difference in proportion of residents successfully managed on-site (95% CI lower limit -6.2% to -1.4% vs -10% noninferiority margin; P < .001 for noninferiority) but not in the difference in mean number of encounters (95% CI upper limit 1.42 to 1.50 encounters vs 1 encounter noninferiority margin; P = .7 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In our model of care, care that involved telemedicine was noninferior to care delivered face-to-face in managing NH residents with acute presentations on-site. However, additional encounters may be required. Application of telemedicine ought to be tailored to fit the needs and preferences of stakeholders.