Kori S Zachrison, Zhiyu Yan, Benjamin A White, Lee Park, Lee H Schwamm
{"title":"与各专科虚拟医疗的数字化患者体验相关的因素。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Factors Associated with the Digital Patient Experience of Virtual Care Across Specialties.
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.