European urology · 2015
Efficiency, satisfaction, and costs for remote video visits following radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Viers Boyd R, Lightner Deborah J, Rivera Marcelino E, Tollefson Matthew K, Boorjian Stephen A, Karnes R Jeffrey, Thompson R Houston, O'Neil Daniel A, Hamilton Rachel L, Gardner Matthew R, Bundrick Mary, Jenkins Sarah M, Pruthi Sandhya, Frank Igor, Gettman Matthew T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine in an ambulatory surgical population remains incompletely evaluated.
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAmbulatory CareAppointments and SchedulesAttitude of Health PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinnesotaOffice VisitsPatient SatisfactionPostoperative CareProspective StudiesProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationRemote ConsultationTime FactorsTime and Motion StudiesVideoconferencingWorkflow