Factors Associated with the Digital Patient Experience of Virtual Care Across Specialties.

Telemedicine reports Pub Date : 2023-08-03 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1089/tmr.2023.0032
Kori S Zachrison, Zhiyu Yan, Benjamin A White, Lee Park, Lee H Schwamm
{"title":"Factors Associated with the Digital Patient Experience of Virtual Care Across Specialties.","authors":"Kori S Zachrison, Zhiyu Yan, Benjamin A White, Lee Park, Lee H Schwamm","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2023.0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to characterize patient experience with virtual care across medical specialties using validated survey data. Primary objective: to determine whether experience varied by visit modality (virtual vs. in-person) and whether relationships persisted after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Secondarily, among physicians with sufficient data, we compared virtual versus in-person patient experience scores at the physician level and identified characteristics associated with better experience scores for virtual care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective analysis of administrative databases from a large New England health care system, including all ambulatory visits from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 with patient experience scores recorded. We compared experience between virtual and in-person at the visit level (score: 0-10) and the physician level for likelihood of recommending the physician to friends or family. We used a series of cross-classified hierarchical models with visits grouped by patient and by physician to decompose sources of variation. Among physicians with sufficient data, we compared physicians with higher virtual versus higher in-person net promoter score (NPS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 378,472 visits performed by 3368 physicians, 86,878 (23%) were conducted virtually. Most scored ≥9 for either modality, with a small preference for virtual versus in-person care (9.6 vs. 9.5, <i>p</i> < 0.001). We found that more variation in scores was explained by patient than by physician (22.9% vs. 3%). Visit modality was of minimal explanatory value. Most physicians' virtual and in-person NPS were similar, and virtual visit volume was not associated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found robust evidence for the parity of patient experience between virtual and in-person modalities across specialties.</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"4 1","pages":"227-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10457601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2023.0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We aimed to characterize patient experience with virtual care across medical specialties using validated survey data. Primary objective: to determine whether experience varied by visit modality (virtual vs. in-person) and whether relationships persisted after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Secondarily, among physicians with sufficient data, we compared virtual versus in-person patient experience scores at the physician level and identified characteristics associated with better experience scores for virtual care.

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of administrative databases from a large New England health care system, including all ambulatory visits from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 with patient experience scores recorded. We compared experience between virtual and in-person at the visit level (score: 0-10) and the physician level for likelihood of recommending the physician to friends or family. We used a series of cross-classified hierarchical models with visits grouped by patient and by physician to decompose sources of variation. Among physicians with sufficient data, we compared physicians with higher virtual versus higher in-person net promoter score (NPS).

Results: Of 378,472 visits performed by 3368 physicians, 86,878 (23%) were conducted virtually. Most scored ≥9 for either modality, with a small preference for virtual versus in-person care (9.6 vs. 9.5, p < 0.001). We found that more variation in scores was explained by patient than by physician (22.9% vs. 3%). Visit modality was of minimal explanatory value. Most physicians' virtual and in-person NPS were similar, and virtual visit volume was not associated.

Conclusions: We found robust evidence for the parity of patient experience between virtual and in-person modalities across specialties.

与各专科虚拟医疗的数字化患者体验相关的因素。
背景:我们的目的是利用经过验证的调查数据,描述各医学专科患者对虚拟医疗的体验。首要目标:确定就诊体验是否因就诊方式(虚拟就诊与面对面就诊)的不同而有所差异,以及在对患者和医疗服务提供者的特征进行调整后,两者之间的关系是否仍然存在。其次,在有足够数据的医生中,我们比较了医生层面的虚拟与面对面患者就医体验得分,并确定了虚拟就医体验得分更高的相关特征:这是一项对新英格兰一家大型医疗保健系统行政数据库的回顾性分析,包括 2020 年 10 月 1 日至 2021 年 9 月 30 日期间记录有患者体验评分的所有非住院就诊。我们在就诊级别(评分:0-10 分)和医生级别比较了虚拟就诊和面对面就诊的体验,并比较了向朋友或家人推荐医生的可能性。我们使用了一系列交叉分类分层模型,按患者和医生对就诊进行分组,以分解差异来源。在有足够数据的医生中,我们比较了虚拟净促进者得分(NPS)较高的医生和亲自就诊净促进者得分(NPS)较高的医生:在 3368 名医生进行的 378,472 次就诊中,有 86,878 次(23%)是通过虚拟方式进行的。大多数人对任一模式的评分都≥9 分,但虚拟就诊与面对面就诊的偏好略有不同(9.6 分对 9.5 分,P 结论:我们发现,有强有力的证据表明虚拟就诊与面对面就诊具有同等价值:我们发现了强有力的证据,证明在各专科中,虚拟和面对面两种模式的患者体验是相同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信