{"title":"P.013 神经科门诊虚拟护理临床评估的准确性","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":"{\"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}","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}
P.013 Accuracy of clinical assessments with virtual care in outpatient neurological setting
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.