初级保健机构中腰痛和头痛视频就诊的临床效果

Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen
{"title":"初级保健机构中腰痛和头痛视频就诊的临床效果","authors":"Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen","doi":"10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.","PeriodicalId":199163,"journal":{"name":"Practice management and organization","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effectiveness of video visits for low back pain and headache in a primary care setting\",\"authors\":\"Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":199163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practice management and organization\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practice management and organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practice management and organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行促进了在初级保健中使用视频就诊。据估计,73%的初级保健就诊可通过视频有效完成。然而,没有研究证明视频就诊对特定主诉的临床有效性。目的:评价视频就诊与面对面就诊对2种常见初级保健主诉的临床疗效。研究设计:回顾性图表回顾。数据集:2019年8月至10月的亲自就诊和2020年8月至10月来自我院门诊急诊诊所(Stanford Express Car e)的视频就诊的手工图表回顾,仅限于2种最常见的主诉(cc):腰痛和头痛。研究人群:在斯坦福快速护理诊所就诊的患有上述cc之一的患者。结果测量:临床医生建议患者首次就诊后急诊或急诊科就诊的频率以及3周内随访的频率用于评估就诊的临床有效性。当临床医生不建议患者在初次就诊后进行紧急办公室或急诊科就诊,并且患者在初次就诊后3周内没有进行亲自随访时,该就诊被认为是临床有效的。在初次患者访问期间,还测量了转诊的频率和诊断成像研究。结果:与面对面就诊相比,腰痛的视频就诊不太可能得到有效评估[74% (37/50)vs 82%(54/66),卡方p=0.3]。在腰痛视频就诊期间,临床医生推荐的患者较少[24% (12/50)vs 36%(24/66),卡方p=0.2],要求的诊断性影像学检查较少[12% (6/50)vs 21%(14/66),卡方p=0.2]。与面对面就诊相比,头痛视频就诊更有可能得到有效评估[86% (43/50)vs 74%(37/50),卡方p=0.1]。在头痛视频就诊期间,临床医生推荐的患者较少[14% (7/50)vs 22%(11/50),(卡方p=0.3)],要求的诊断性影像学检查较少[2% (1/50)vs 18%(9/50),卡方p=0.007]。结论:对于腰痛和头痛,视频就诊的效果并不比面对面就诊的效果差。在头痛视频就诊期间,诊断性影像学检查的数量显著减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical effectiveness of video visits for low back pain and headache in a primary care setting
Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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