ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is creating huge pressure on our health care systems and has led to dramatic changes in our daily lives. Many countries have enforced strict controls on movement and socializing in an effort to manage the pandemic. Both, in-patient and out-patient care has been affected. There is big gap between health care service providers and patients and because of that many people are suffering. But telemedicine appears to be only bridge between them so that patients can get maximum benefit from the experts. This study is being conducted to know the worth of telemedicine in urology during ongoing COVID pandemic and for future prospect. Materials & Methods: All the patients who made a call on telemedicine contact number of department of urology of our tertiary care hospital and took advice for their treatment or follow up from April 2020 to December 2020, were included in this prospective observational study. Patients contacted us through various modalities like Voice/video call, WhatsApp chat, messages. Patients who contacted us for non-urological problem were excluded. All calls were answered by Professional Urologist and advice was given verbally as well as sent them in written on a prescription slip through WhatsApp. Data collection included age, sex, place, symptoms and advice given. Results: During the study period, we received 1102 calls from the patients of North India, 124 patients were excluded for being non-urological and 978 patients were included. 94% patients contacted us through voice call, 4% through video call and 2% through chat only. Average duration of call was 16 minutes and 25 seconds. 68% patients were males, while 32% females. 54% patients were younger than 40 years and only 15% were elder than 60 years. Common reasons for calling us were- urinary tract infection (23%), lower urinary tracts symptoms (21%), renal stone disease (17%), haematuria (11%), post-operated cases (11%) and sexual problems (7%). Approximately 16% patients had some urological malignancy. Only 18% patients contacted us for acute illness of duration <1 week, while 47% patients were sick for >4 weeks. 18% patients needed only counselling for their disease, 65% required prescription and conservative management. 17% patients were requiring in-hospital management so referred to nearby urological center for urgent intervention or care. None of the patients had any problem in getting medications from pharmacy. Conclusions: Telemedicine provides specialized clinical support for urologists and patients just by using mobile phones, as a logistically feasible alternative to face-to-face consultation. 83% of cases were successfully managed just by telemedicine and very useful for reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 infection. This novel way of urological practice should be continued in future to reduce unnecessary visits to medical facilities even after this pandemic.