072 2019冠状病毒病大流行期间远程医疗对多发性硬化症门诊的影响

V. Li, A. Nguyen, I. Roos, K. Buzzard, C. Dwyer, M. Marriott, M. Monif, C. Malpas, Stefanie Roberts, Lisa Taylor, Elizabeth Carle, Nicola Taylor, Kelsey Tunnell, T. Kilpatrick, T. Kalincik
{"title":"072 2019冠状病毒病大流行期间远程医疗对多发性硬化症门诊的影响","authors":"V. Li, A. Nguyen, I. Roos, K. Buzzard, C. Dwyer, M. Marriott, M. Monif, C. Malpas, Stefanie Roberts, Lisa Taylor, Elizabeth Carle, Nicola Taylor, Kelsey Tunnell, T. Kilpatrick, T. Kalincik","doi":"10.1136/bmjno-2021-anzan.72","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Characterise telehealth use in MS clinics during the COVID–19 pandemic. Assess patient and clinician attitudes towards telehealth. Compare telehealth–based and physical EDSS obtained during period of telehealth implementation. Methods Clinic records from Mar-Dec 2020 were reviewed. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about experiences using Telehealth. The iMed database was searched for EDSS recorded via face-to-face and telehealth appointments during and compared to face-to-face EDSS preceding and following the study period. T-test and Chi-square test were used for between-group comparisons. Results 2023 appointments (27% face-to-face, 35% video, 37% telephone) were conducted. New referrals were predominantly face-to-face (66%). 89% of patients were satisfied with telehealth. 58% felt they were as good as face-to-face visits, whilst only 11% of clinicians agreed. Many patients favoured a hybrid model. Safety during the COVID-19 pandemic was important to both groups. EDSS increase from the preceding visit was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of face-to-face than telehealth appointments (p=0.027), with the increase driven by patients with baseline EDSS≤4.0. Amongst patients with EDSS increases, similar numbers of suspected relapses were seen via both modalities. Absolute increase in EDSS was also significantly greater amongst patients seen face-to-face (p Conclusion Patient satisfaction with telehealth was high, whilst clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations. EDSS increase was more frequently recorded via face-to-face than telehealth appointments, which may underestimate lower EDSS. Future clinics could combine both modalities.","PeriodicalId":20317,"journal":{"name":"Poster Discussion Abstracts","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"072 Impact of telehealth on multiple sclerosis (MS) outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"V. Li, A. Nguyen, I. Roos, K. Buzzard, C. Dwyer, M. Marriott, M. Monif, C. Malpas, Stefanie Roberts, Lisa Taylor, Elizabeth Carle, Nicola Taylor, Kelsey Tunnell, T. Kilpatrick, T. Kalincik\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjno-2021-anzan.72\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives Characterise telehealth use in MS clinics during the COVID–19 pandemic. Assess patient and clinician attitudes towards telehealth. Compare telehealth–based and physical EDSS obtained during period of telehealth implementation. Methods Clinic records from Mar-Dec 2020 were reviewed. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about experiences using Telehealth. The iMed database was searched for EDSS recorded via face-to-face and telehealth appointments during and compared to face-to-face EDSS preceding and following the study period. T-test and Chi-square test were used for between-group comparisons. Results 2023 appointments (27% face-to-face, 35% video, 37% telephone) were conducted. New referrals were predominantly face-to-face (66%). 89% of patients were satisfied with telehealth. 58% felt they were as good as face-to-face visits, whilst only 11% of clinicians agreed. Many patients favoured a hybrid model. Safety during the COVID-19 pandemic was important to both groups. EDSS increase from the preceding visit was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of face-to-face than telehealth appointments (p=0.027), with the increase driven by patients with baseline EDSS≤4.0. Amongst patients with EDSS increases, similar numbers of suspected relapses were seen via both modalities. Absolute increase in EDSS was also significantly greater amongst patients seen face-to-face (p Conclusion Patient satisfaction with telehealth was high, whilst clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations. EDSS increase was more frequently recorded via face-to-face than telehealth appointments, which may underestimate lower EDSS. Future clinics could combine both modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Poster Discussion Abstracts\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Poster Discussion Abstracts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjno-2021-anzan.72\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poster Discussion Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjno-2021-anzan.72","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

目的分析2019冠状病毒病大流行期间MS诊所远程医疗的使用情况。评估患者和临床医生对远程医疗的态度。比较远程医疗实施期间获得的基于远程医疗和物理EDSS。方法回顾2020年3月- 12月的临床记录。患者和临床医生填写了关于使用远程医疗体验的问卷。在iMed数据库中搜索通过面对面和远程医疗预约记录的EDSS,并将其与研究期间前后的面对面EDSS进行比较。组间比较采用t检验和卡方检验。结果共预约2023次,其中面对面预约27%,视频预约35%,电话预约37%。新的转诊主要是面对面的(66%)。89%的患者对远程医疗感到满意。58%的人认为他们和面对面的拜访一样好,而只有11%的临床医生同意这一观点。许多患者喜欢混合模式。COVID-19大流行期间的安全对两组都很重要。与前一次就诊相比,面对面就诊的EDSS增加比例显著高于远程就诊(p=0.027),基线EDSS≤4.0的患者推动了EDSS的增加。在EDSS增加的患者中,通过两种方式观察到相似数量的疑似复发。结论患者对远程医疗的满意度较高,而临床医生更倾向于面对面咨询。与远程医疗预约相比,面对面记录的EDSS增加更频繁,这可能低估了较低的EDSS。未来的诊所可以将这两种模式结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
072 Impact of telehealth on multiple sclerosis (MS) outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic
Objectives Characterise telehealth use in MS clinics during the COVID–19 pandemic. Assess patient and clinician attitudes towards telehealth. Compare telehealth–based and physical EDSS obtained during period of telehealth implementation. Methods Clinic records from Mar-Dec 2020 were reviewed. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about experiences using Telehealth. The iMed database was searched for EDSS recorded via face-to-face and telehealth appointments during and compared to face-to-face EDSS preceding and following the study period. T-test and Chi-square test were used for between-group comparisons. Results 2023 appointments (27% face-to-face, 35% video, 37% telephone) were conducted. New referrals were predominantly face-to-face (66%). 89% of patients were satisfied with telehealth. 58% felt they were as good as face-to-face visits, whilst only 11% of clinicians agreed. Many patients favoured a hybrid model. Safety during the COVID-19 pandemic was important to both groups. EDSS increase from the preceding visit was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of face-to-face than telehealth appointments (p=0.027), with the increase driven by patients with baseline EDSS≤4.0. Amongst patients with EDSS increases, similar numbers of suspected relapses were seen via both modalities. Absolute increase in EDSS was also significantly greater amongst patients seen face-to-face (p Conclusion Patient satisfaction with telehealth was high, whilst clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations. EDSS increase was more frequently recorded via face-to-face than telehealth appointments, which may underestimate lower EDSS. Future clinics could combine both modalities.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信