ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: During the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation. METHODS: We contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS). RESULTS: Of 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of telemedicine due to confinement measures. However, the percentage of outpatient urological cases that could be managed completely by telemedicine outside of the COVID-19 pandemic remains to be determined. We conducted a prospective, multisite study involving all urologists working in the region of Quebec City. METHODS: During the first four weeks of the regional confinement, 18 pediatric and adult urologists were asked to determine, after each telemedicine appointment, if it translated into a complete (CCM), incomplete (ICM), or suboptimal case management (SCM, adequate only in the context of the pandemic). RESULTS: A total of 1679 appointments representing all urological areas were registered. Overall, 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.3; 69.8), 27.1% (25.0; 29.3), and 4.3% (3.5; 5.4) were reported as CCM, SCM, and ICM, respectively. The CCM ratio varied according to the reason for consultation, with cancer suspicion (52.9% [42.9; 62.8]) and pediatric reasons (38.0% [30.0; 46.6]) showing the lowest CCM percentages. CCM percentages also varied significantly based on the setting where it was performed, ranging from 61.1% (private clinic) to 86.8% (endourology and general hospital). CONCLUSIONS: We show that two-thirds of all urological outpatient cases could be completely managed by telemedicine outside of the pandemic. After the pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative for a patient's first or followup visit, especially those with geographical, pathological, and socioeconomic considerations.