ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created a difficult environment to provide musculoskeletal care to patients with foot and ankle pathology given the limitations placed on in-office visits. Telemedicine offered a unique avenue to reach these patients;however, the efficacy of telemedicine visits in patients with foot and ankle pathology is not well studied. We propose a telemedicine protocol that has allowed us to effectively see and treat patients with foot and ankle pathology. Methods: A 12-step standardized telemedicine protocol was created within the Foot and Ankle division that was used for seeing patients through telemedicine. Also included in this is previsit preparation and follow-up recommendations. Press Ganey surveys were retrospectively reviewed to understand patient experience with telemedicine. Results: 85.2% of patients surveyed responded with scores indicating excellent care. When comparing patients who were seen in-office and through telemedicine, 89.2% and 83.4% responded with scores indicating excellent care, respectively (P = .37). Conclusion: Telemedicine offers an effective and convenient way to provide excellent musculoskeletal care to patients affected with foot and ankle pathology. This is the first study that evaluated a comprehensive protocol for telemedicine encounters and can be used to implement telemedicine by others using this approach. Level of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a difficult environment to provide musculoskeletal care to patients with foot and ankle pathology given the limitations placed on in-office visits. Telemedicine offered a unique avenue to reach these patients; however, the efficacy of telemedicine visits in patients with foot and ankle pathology is not well studied. We propose a telemedicine protocol that has allowed us to effectively see and treat patients with foot and ankle pathology. METHODS: A 12-step standardized telemedicine protocol was created within the Foot and Ankle division that was used for seeing patients through telemedicine. Also included in this is previsit preparation and follow-up recommendations. Press Ganey surveys were retrospectively reviewed to understand patient experience with telemedicine. RESULTS: 85.2% of patients surveyed responded with scores indicating excellent care. When comparing patients who were seen in-office and through telemedicine, 89.2% and 83.4% responded with scores indicating excellent care, respectively (P = .37). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine offers an effective and convenient way to provide excellent musculoskeletal care to patients affected with foot and ankle pathology. This is the first study that evaluated a comprehensive protocol for telemedicine encounters and can be used to implement telemedicine by others using this approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.
ABSTRACT
Category: Other;Ankle;Hindfoot;Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: A lack of access to care is predictably associated with negative outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Despite recent advances in telecommunication technologies, the field of orthopaedics has been slow to adopt these resources in offsetting barriers to care. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced departments to change their clinical approach, lending unprecedented opportunity to better understand how telehealth may bridge this care gap in foot and ankle practices. The purpose of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes of telemedicine encounters, including comfort and patient satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that patients would be significantly less satisfied with telemedicine when compared to in-office appointments for all non-emergent visit types. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients seen via telemedicine between April 13, 2020, to June 19, 2020, by one surgeon in the Emory Orthopedics Foot and Ankle department was conducted. Patients were contacted by one of the study authors via telephone to complete a questionnaire;satisfaction and other visit characteristics were assessed with a modified Likert scale from 1 to 5. Patients were designated as either ‘New’ or ‘Established’ based on whether or not they had completed an in-office clinic visit within the last year. Anatomy and pathology of disorder were determined by chief complaint and billing code. Patient demographics were recorded, and data were analyzed using paired and independent t-tests for parametric continuous data, Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests for non-continuous data. Results: 338 eligible patients were contacted via telephone, with 216 (63.9%) completing the telemedicine questionnaire. The patient cohort had an average age of 50.6 (19-84) years old and was 73.6% female (n=159). Overall mean satisfaction for telemedicine visits (4.69) was significantly lower than in-office visits (4.86) (p<0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patient satisfaction, patients seeking fracture care had significantly higher telemedicine satisfaction when compared to those receiving non-fracture care (4.90 vs. 4.64, p=0.001). Telemedicine satisfaction was also significantly greater in patients traveling more than 50 miles from their home to clinic (4.96 vs. 4.67, p<0.001). Patients with median household income less than the Georgia state median ($55,679) were more satisfied with their telemedicine visits than those with greater income, though the difference was non-significant. Conclusion: our data suggest those with significantly hindered mobility such as increased distance from clinic, lower socioeconomic status, and those seeking care for fractures had higher telemedicine satisfaction than their peers. Further study is needed to detail the precise and safe use of telemedicine in practice, but these data illuminate the high ceiling telemedicine offers in expanding patient care. Our hope is that this study aids as a supportive rationale for the continued use of telehealth visits past the period of the pandemic and encourages a more nuanced view of what visit types may be best-suited for telehealthcare
ABSTRACT
Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The current COVID-19 pandemic has created a unique problem for orthopaedic surgeons by mandating ‘social distancing’ and limiting patient-provider interactions. Centers have reacted to this by implementing Telemedicine as a way to still provide care for patients. We have developed a Telemedicine protocol we believe allows for enough information to be gathered to provide an accurate diagnosis and with high patient satisfaction. Methods: A 12-step standardized protocol was created to be used during foot and ankle Telemedicine visits. This was coupled with pre-visit preparation by the office staff with the patient as well as recommending appropriate follow-up either in person or again via Telemedicine. After implementation of this system in April 2020, we retrospectively reviewed Press-Ganey data collected for provider rating (scale 0-10) with Telemedicine visits and traditional office visits through June 2020. Scores of 9 and 10 out of 10 were grouped together to represent an excellent experience, and all other responses were grouped together as a less than excellent experience. Fischer’s exact test was used to compare samples. Results: A total of 183 patients were surveyed during this time period, 127 from telemedicine visits and 56 from in-office visits. 106/127 (83.4%) patients surveyed after Telehealth visits and 50/56 (89.2%) after in-person visits rated their visit as a 9 or 10 (p=0.37). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way that orthopaedic surgeons have needed to deliver care to their patients. Though the transition has had its difficulties, it would be a failure in progress to not recognize and adopt the advances that have been made during this time. Though the adaption of Telemedicine was made out of necessity at our institution, the lessons learned during this trying time has enabled us to provide excellent orthopaedic care through telemedicine that can continue once restrictions have been lifted.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A lack of access to care is predictably associated with negative outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Despite recent advances in telecommunication technologies, the field of orthopedics has been slow to adopt these resources in offsetting barriers to care. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced departments to change their clinical approach, lending unprecedented opportunity to better understand how telehealth may bridge this care gap in foot and ankle practices. The purpose of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes of telemedicine encounters, including comfort and patient satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that patients would be significantly less satisfied with telemedicine when compared with in-office appointments for all nonemergency visit types. METHODS: Telemedicine satisfaction was assessed via phone survey with a modified 1 to 5 Likert scale. Patients who had completed a telemedicine visit between April 13, 2020, and June 19, 2020, were eligible to participate. Patient demographics were recorded, and data were analyzed using paired and independent t tests for parametric continuous data and Fisher's exact and chi-square tests for noncontinuous data. A total of 216 patients completed the telemedicine questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall mean satisfaction for telemedicine visits (4.7) was significantly lower than that for in-office visits (4.9) (P < .001). However, the majority (90.3%) of patients reported they would use telemedicine again in the future. When compared, patients seeking fracture care had significantly higher telemedicine satisfaction (4.9, n = 38) than those receiving nonfracture care (4.6, n = 178) (P = .001), and those greater than 50 miles from the clinic had higher satisfaction (5.0, n = 14) than patients living within 50 miles of the clinic (4.7, n = 202) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients were more satisfied with their in-office clinic visit than telemedicine, although the vast majority of patients endorsed a willingness to utilize telemedicine in the future. Patients with trauma and greater barriers to foot and ankle care were more satisfied with their telemedicine visits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.