Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(23)2022 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2143152

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the first months of COVID-19, the Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition service of the Hospital Sant Joan de Déu in Barcelona, a leading pediatric center in Spain, introduced a new model of non-face-to-face care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations compared to those conducted face-to-face on healthcare utilization. METHODOLOGY: Two main indicators of effectiveness are used: the degree of resolution (percentage of first telemedicine visits that did not generate any new visits in the following 4 and 12 months) and the average number of subsequent visits. A distinction was made between visits for general pathologies (less complex) and those for pathologies treated in monographic consultations (chronic or complex pathologies). Effectiveness at 4 and 12 months was also compared. RESULTS: After 4 months from the first visit, the degree of resolution is lower in the first telemedicine visits than in face-to-face visits for both general pathologies and those of monographic agendas for chronic and complex pathologies. After twelve months, the first general telemedicine visits are less resolute than face-to-face visits, while the resolution rate is the same for chronic and complex pathology visits. Each telemedicine visit generates on average more visits than face-to-face visits. In the short term, 133.4% more in the case of general visits and 51.4% more in the case of chronic and complex visits. In the long term, general telemedicine visits generate 57.31% more visits, while no statistically significant difference is observed between chronic and complex face-to-face and telemedicine visits. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the resolution capacity of the non-face-to-face model in pediatric care in the pandemic context is generally lower and generates more successive visits than the face-to-face model. This lower performance of the telemedicine model should be counterbalanced with its advantages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Child , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Telemedicine/methods , Referral and Consultation , Spain/epidemiology
2.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(9): e19149, 2020 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781793

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, telemedicine services have been introduced in the public health care systems of several industrialized countries. In Catalonia, the use of eConsulta, an asynchronous teleconsultation service between primary care professionals and citizens in the public health care system, has already reached 1 million cases. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of eConsulta was growing at a monthly rate of 7%, and the growth has been exponential from March 15, 2020 to the present day. Despite its widespread usage, there is little qualitative evidence describing how this tool is used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to annotate a random sample of teleconsultations from eConsulta, and to evaluate the level of agreement between health care professionals with respect to the annotation. METHODS: Twenty general practitioners retrospectively annotated a random sample of 5382 cases managed by eConsulta according to three aspects: the type of interaction according to 6 author-proposed categories, whether the practitioners believed a face-to-face visit was avoided, and whether they believed the patient would have requested a face-to-face visit had eConsulta not been available. A total of 1217 cases were classified three times by three different professionals to assess the degree of consensus among them. RESULTS: The general practitioners considered that 79.60% (4284/5382) of the teleconsultations resulted in avoiding a face-to-face visit, and considered that 64.96% (3496/5382) of the time, the patient would have made a face-to-face visit in the absence of a service like eConsulta. The most frequent uses were for management of test results (26.77%, 1433/5354), management of repeat prescriptions (24.30%, 1301/5354), and medical enquiries (14.23%, 762/5354). The degree of agreement among professionals as to the annotations was mixed, with the highest consensus demonstrated for the question "Has the online consultation avoided a face-to-face visit?" (3/3 professionals agreed 67.95% of the time, 827/1217), and the lowest consensus for the type of use of the teleconsultation (3/3 professionals agreed 57.60% of the time, 701/1217). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the ability of eConsulta to reduce the number of face-to-face visits for 55% (79% × 65%) to 79% of cases. In comparison to previous research, these results are slightly more pessimistic, although the rates are still high and in line with administrative data proxies, showing that 84% of patients using teleconsultations do not make an in-person appointment in the following 3 months. With respect to the type of consultation performed, our results are similar to the existing literature, thus providing robust support for eConsulta's usage. The mixed degree of consensus among professionals implies that results derived from artificial intelligence tools such as message classification algorithms should be interpreted in light of these shortcomings.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Remote Consultation/methods , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Primary Health Care , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL