P.013 Accuracy of clinical assessments with virtual care in outpatient neurological setting

J. Pellegrino, L Lee
{"title":"P.013 Accuracy of clinical assessments with virtual care in outpatient neurological setting","authors":"J. Pellegrino, L Lee","doi":"10.1017/cjn.2024.121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Virtual neurological assessments were increasingly used and an important viable option during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the accuracy of such assessments is unknown. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed in a predominant multiple sclerosis outpatient clinic at an academic teaching hospital from March 23rd 2020 to March 23rd 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients assessed during this period were analyzed with an initial virtual assessment compared to subsequent in person evaluations. Results: 1036 patients were included. 27.8% (n=288) of consultations were video and 72.2% (n=748) telephone. A total of 13.8% (n=143) of virtual consultations revealed clinical disparities, specifically 13.5% (n=39) video and 13.9% (n=104) telephone consultations. Of all the 1036 cases, 2.32% (n=24) patients stated they were stable but significant changes were seen on the exam, changing the clinical impression. 11.5% (n=119) stated they were deteriorating virtually but not confirmed when examined in person, with an alternative explanation found. Conclusions: Virtual assessments were accurate in over 85% of the outpatient neurological cases during the pandemic. However, it should be noted that the in person neurological exam led to a change in clinical opinion in 13.8% of assessments. 2.32% patients described clinical stability, but different clinical management plans resulted when significant exam findings were identified.","PeriodicalId":9571,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","volume":"23 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Virtual neurological assessments were increasingly used and an important viable option during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the accuracy of such assessments is unknown. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed in a predominant multiple sclerosis outpatient clinic at an academic teaching hospital from March 23rd 2020 to March 23rd 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients assessed during this period were analyzed with an initial virtual assessment compared to subsequent in person evaluations. Results: 1036 patients were included. 27.8% (n=288) of consultations were video and 72.2% (n=748) telephone. A total of 13.8% (n=143) of virtual consultations revealed clinical disparities, specifically 13.5% (n=39) video and 13.9% (n=104) telephone consultations. Of all the 1036 cases, 2.32% (n=24) patients stated they were stable but significant changes were seen on the exam, changing the clinical impression. 11.5% (n=119) stated they were deteriorating virtually but not confirmed when examined in person, with an alternative explanation found. Conclusions: Virtual assessments were accurate in over 85% of the outpatient neurological cases during the pandemic. However, it should be noted that the in person neurological exam led to a change in clinical opinion in 13.8% of assessments. 2.32% patients described clinical stability, but different clinical management plans resulted when significant exam findings were identified.
P.013 神经科门诊虚拟护理临床评估的准确性
背景:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,虚拟神经评估的使用越来越多,成为一种重要的可行选择。然而,此类评估的准确性尚不清楚。方法在 COVID-19 大流行期间,我们查阅了一家学术教学医院多发性硬化症主要门诊从 2020 年 3 月 23 日至 2021 年 3 月 23 日的临床记录。对在此期间接受评估的患者进行了分析,并将最初的虚拟评估与随后的亲自评估进行了比较。结果共纳入 1036 名患者。27.8%(n=288)的咨询是通过视频进行的,72.2%(n=748)的咨询是通过电话进行的。共有 13.8%(n=143)的虚拟会诊显示出临床差异,特别是 13.5%(n=39)的视频会诊和 13.9%(n=104)的电话会诊。在所有 1036 个病例中,2.32%(n=24)的患者表示病情稳定,但在检查中发现明显变化,改变了临床印象。11.5%(n=119)的患者表示他们的病情在无形中恶化,但当面检查时并未得到证实,而是找到了其他解释。结论在大流行期间,超过 85% 的神经科门诊病例的虚拟评估是准确的。但应注意的是,在 13.8%的评估中,亲自进行的神经系统检查导致了临床意见的改变。2.32%的患者描述临床病情稳定,但在发现重要检查结果时,临床治疗方案却发生了变化。
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