ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known about satisfaction with different modes of telemedicine delivery. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction with phone-only was noninferior to video visits. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, randomized (1:1), single-blind, noninferiority trial in multispecialty clinics at a tertiary academic medical center. Adults age ≥ 60 years or with Medicare/Medicaid insurance were eligible. Primary outcome was visit satisfaction rate (9 or 10 on a 0-10 satisfaction scale). Noninferiority was determined if satisfaction with phone-only (intervention) versus video visits (comparator) was no worse by a -15% prespecified noninferiority margin. We performed modified intent-to-treat (mITT) and per protocol analyses, after adjusting for age and insurance. RESULTS: 200 participants, 43% Black, 68% women completed surveys. Visit satisfaction rates were high. In the mITT analysis, phone-only visits were noninferior by an adjusted difference of 3.2% (95% CI, -7.6% to 14%). In the per protocol analysis, phone-only were noninferior by an adjusted difference of -4.1% (95% CI, -14.8% to 6.6%). The proportion of participants who indicated they preferred the same type of telemedicine visit as their next clinic visit were similar (30.2% vs 27.9% video vs phone-only, p = 0.78) and a majority said their medical concerns were addressed and would recommend a telemedicine visit. CONCLUSIONS: Among a group of diverse, established older or underserved patients, the satisfaction rate for phone-only was noninferior to video visits. These findings could impact practice and policies governing telemedicine.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , Aged , United States , Adult , Female , Middle Aged , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Single-Blind Method , Personal Satisfaction , Medicare , Telemedicine/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in a racially diverse sample from the US Southeast and examine the association of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor use with COVID-19 outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: This study is a retrospective cohort of 1024 patients with reverse-transcriptase PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, admitted to a 1242-bed teaching hospital in Alabama. Data on RAAS inhibitors use, demographics and comorbidities were extracted from hospital medical records. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: In-hospital mortality, a need of intensive care unit, respiratory failure, defined as invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and 90-day same-hospital readmissions. RESULTS: Among 1024 patients (mean (SD) age, 57 (18.8) years), 532 (52.0%) were African Americans, 514 (50.2%) male, 493 (48.1%) had hypertension, 365 (36%) were taking RAAS inhibitors. During index hospitalisation (median length of stay of 7 (IQR (4-15) days) 137 (13.4%) patients died; 170 (19.2%) of survivors were readmitted. RAAS inhibitor use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 95% CI (0.56, (0.36 to 0.88), p=0.01) and no effect modification by race was observed (p for interaction=0.81). Among patients with hypertension, baseline RAAS use was associated with reduced risk of iMV, adjusted OR, 95% CI (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95, p=0.03). Patients with heart failure were twice as likely to die from COVID-19, compared with patients without heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospespective study of racially diverse patients, hospitalised with COVID-19, prehospitalisation use of RAAS inhibitors was associated with 40% reduction in mortality irrespective of race.