The role of teledentistry in oral surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives: Evaluation of patient experience of teledentistry during the coronavirus pandemic and establishing the clinical effectiveness of teleclinics in this context. Method(s): 103 follow-up patients who had a telephone review during the pandemic were included. A five-item, five-point Likert-scale telephone survey was used to gauge patient experience. In addition, retrospective analysis of these patients' electronic records was done to establish effectiveness of the telephone review. Patients' responses and data collected were then analysed. Result(s): In terms of patient experience of their telephone review, 70% found the telephone review was useful, 77% felt their concerns were addressed, 99% felt it was easy to access and time saving, 94% felt they could discuss their healthcare matters on the phone, and 62% felt they preferred telephone reviews rather than face-to-face reviews for their follow-up appointments. When analysing effectiveness of the telephone review, 62% of patients could be discharged following the teleconsultation, suggesting it was sufficient alone to complete these patients' care. All relevant clinical information was present for 98% of the teleconsultations to proceed. Results showed teledentistry was particularly effective for follow-up patients requiring a post-operative review or finalisation of treatment plans. Conclusion(s): Patients had a positive experience of telephone clinics for the provision of their routine follow-up care. In addition, teledentistry is shown to be a means of increasing capacity for face-to-face reviews, in turn reducing waiting times and further improving patient experience. Appropriate case selection for teledentistry is essential. Teledentistry is an efficient and effective tool for patient care when used suitably and can have an important role in routine patient care beyond the pandemic.Copyright © 2020

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of telephone and face-to-face consultations for new otology referrals and discuss the wider use of telemedicine in otology. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including new adult otology referrals to our unit, sampled consecutively between March 2021 and May 2021, seen in either a face-to-face or telephone clinic. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a definitive management outcome (discharged or added to waiting list for treatment) versus the proportion of patients requiring follow-up for further assessment or review. RESULTS: 150 new patients referred for a routine otology consultation (75 telephone, 75 face-to-face) were included. 53/75 patients (71%) undergoing a face-to-face consultation received a definitive outcome following initial review, versus 22/75 (29%) telephone patients (χ2 < 0.001, OR 5.8). 52/75 (69%) telephone patients were followed up face-to-face for examination. The mean (SD) number of appointments required to reach a definitive outcome was 1.22 (0.58) and 1.75 (0.73) in the face-to-face and telephone cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone clinics in otology have played an important role as part of the COVID19 response. However, they are currently limited by a lack of clinical examination and audiometry. Remote assessment pathways in otology that incorporate asynchronous review of recorded examinations alongside audiometry, either conventional or boothless, may mitigate this problem; however, further research is required.

The Effectiveness of Remote Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Tool for Modernising the National Health Service (NHS).

Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted major changes to the delivery of care. There was a move towards remote consultations in order to mitigate the risk of viral exposure and the risk of delaying care. Remote consultations will play a prominent role within the National Health Service (NHS) in the future. This project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of remote consultations relative to face-to-face (F2F) consultations. Methods A local retrospective audit of remote consultations in ENT was performed by comparing outcome data for video and telephone appointments during the first peak of the pandemic to outcomes for F2F consultations during the same months of the preceding year. Chi-square tests were employed to determine whether there was any statistically significant discrepancy between the two modalities. Results Outcomes from a total of 314 patient consultations were reviewed. One hundred and fifty-four patients were male, and 160 were female; 111 patient consultations were conducted F2F, and 203 remotely (101 via telephone and 102 via video). There was no statistically significant difference detected between remote and F2F groups for rates of investigation, listing for theatre, referral to other specialties, and initiating treatment. Patients reviewed remotely were less likely to be discharged than those reviewed F2F (p=<0.001). Comparing the two remote modalities, telephone patients were more likely to undergo investigation than patients reviewed over video (p = 0.031). Conclusions Remote consultations were an effective and reliable resource for maintaining a high standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that remote consultations will prove a valuable tool for clinicians in the remobilisation of health services in the post-pandemic era.

Providing Care by Telephone to Refugees and Asylum Seekers: An Evaluation of Telephone Mode-of-Care in Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing Clinic in Victoria, Australia.

An evaluation of accessibility, appropriateness, acceptability and efficiency of telephone consultations, implemented at Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing (MH RHW) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, was conducted. A convergent mix-methods design was used, with both patients (n = 50) and clinicians (n = 11) participating in a survey, and two focus groups (n = 14) involving clinicians being conducted. Service utilization data was sourced from the MH RHW database. During May to December 2020, 61% (n = 3012) of the consultations were conducted by telephone, 42% (n = 11) of these required interpreters in a 3-way conversation Most patients were satisfied with telephone as a medium for providing care and with the quality of telephone-based care. Similarly, clinicians considered telephone consultations to be an acceptable mode-of-care for most patients during the pandemic, however, expressed caution in relation to certain patient cohort. Finally, the provision of care by telephone was considered no more efficient than face-to-face service provision, as reflected in the time required for each consultation, with some clinicians reporting adverse workload outcomes. This study highlighted the benefits and challenges of telephone consultations from patient and clinician perspectives. It also highlighted the types of patients that may not be suited to telephone consultations. Overall, this study showed that telephone service delivery is a feasible option in providing care to people of refugee background and should be considered in future decisions as an ongoing Medicare (Australia's universal healthcare insurance scheme) billing item. However, clinical discretion should prevail in determining the most appropriate means of delivering care.

The impact of telephone consultations due to COVID-19 on paediatric neurosurgical health services.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of telephone consultations due to the pandemic in the management of paediatric neurosurgical patients and, furthermore, to examine the proportion of patients who eventually needed a face-to-face appointment and assess the underline reasons for that. METHODS: This retrospective study included all the paediatric neurosurgical patients who had a telephone appointment during a 3-month lockdown period. Overall, 319 patients (186 males and 133 females) aged 8.36 ± 4.88 (mean ± SD) had a consultation via telephone. Two hundred fifty-one (78.7%) patients had a follow-up assessment and 68 (21.3%) were new appointments. RESULTS: Patients were divided between two main groups. Group A included 263 patients (82.4%) whose consultation was adequate via telephone, and Group B included 56 patients (17.6%) who required a complementary face-to-face appointment. Patients who were more likely to require a supplementary appointment were patients with either dysraphism or ventriculomegaly and benign enlarged subarachnoid spaces (BESS) (43.3% and 36.4%, respectively). Interestingly, most children with hydrocephalus who underwent a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion procedure and children with Chiari I malformation were appropriately assessed via telephone (85.1% and 83.3%, respectively). Finally, children aged < 2 years (55.2%) were better managed with face-to-face appointments. No difference was noticed regarding follow-up and new appointments. CONCLUSION: Although telemedicine was not unknown to neurosurgical services, the actual application of telephone or video consultations remained quite limited. It was COVID-19 pandemic who reinforced the use of telemedicine, and taking into consideration its promising results, we can safely assume that it can be incorporated into neurosurgical health care even once the pandemic crisis has resolved.

Patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-method rapid review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented remote consultations in primary care to protect patients and staff from infection. AIM: The aim of this review was to synthesise the literature exploring patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care during the pandemic, with the further aim of informing their future delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: Rapid literature review. METHOD: PubMed and PsychInfo were searched for studies that explored patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care. To determine the eligibility of studies, their titles and abstracts were reviewed, before the full article. Qualitative and quantitative data were then extracted from those that were eligible, and the data synthesised using thematic and descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Most were performed in the US (n = 6, 25%) or Europe (n = 7, 29%). Patient and physician experiences were categorised into perceived 'advantages' and 'issues'. Key advantages experienced by patients and physicians included 'reduced risk of COVID-19' and 'increased convenience', while key issues included 'a lack of confidence in or access to required technology' and a 'loss of non-verbal communication' which degraded clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: This review identified a number of advantages and issues experienced by patients and physicians using remote consultations in primary care. The results suggest that, while remote consultations are more convenient and protect patients and staff against COVID-19, they result in the loss of valuable non-verbal communication, and are not accessible to all.

Delivery of supported self-management in remote asthma reviews: A systematic rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced health care systems globally to adapt quickly to remote modes of health care delivery, including for routine asthma reviews. A core component of asthma care is supporting self-management, a guideline-recommended intervention that reduces the risk of acute attacks, and improves asthma control and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore context and mechanisms for the outcomes of clinical effectiveness, acceptability and safety of supported self-management delivery within remote asthma consultations. DESIGN: The review followed standard methodology for rapid realist reviews. An External Reference Group (ERG) provided expert advice and guidance throughout the study. We systematically searched four electronic databases and, with ERG advice, selected 18 papers that explored self-management delivery during routine asthma reviews. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Health care professional delivery of supported self-management for asthma patients during remote (specifically including telephone and video) consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted using Context-Mechanism-Outcome (C-M-O) configurations and synthesised into overarching themes using the PRISMS taxonomy of supported self-management as a framework to structure the findings. RESULTS: The review findings identified how support for self-management delivered remotely was acceptable (often more acceptable than in-person consultations), and was a safe and effective alternative to face-to-face reviews. In addition, remote delivery of supported self-management was associated with; increased patient convenience, improved access to and attendance at remote reviews, and offered continuity of care. DISCUSSION: Remote delivery of supported self-management for asthma was generally found to be clinically effective, acceptable, and safe with the added advantage of increasing accessibility. Remote reviews could provide the core content of an asthma review, including remote completion of asthma action plans. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the option of remote delivery of routine asthma care for those who have this preference, and offer healthcare professionals guidance on embedding supported self-management into remote asthma reviews. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contribution was provided by a representative of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) patient and public involvement (PPI) group. The PPI representative reviewed the findings, and feedback and comments were considered. This lead to further interpretations of the data which were included in the final manuscript.

Telepsychiatry: learning from the pandemic.

This article draws on research and clinical experience to discuss how and when to use video consultations in mental health settings. The appropriateness and impact of virtual consultations are influenced by the patient's clinical needs and social context, as well as by service-level socio-technical and logistical factors.

Telephone consultations to manage paediatric outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic: a service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: North West Wales is predominantly rural with a relatively small population spread over a large geographical area. The rapid development of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a radical re-thinking of how to provide continuing paediatric outpatient care in the face of a lockdown. The solution adopted was to use telephone consultations. AIMS: This study took place during the summer of 2020, after the first lockdown had been relaxed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of telephone consultations as an alternative to conventional paediatric outpatient appointments and assess whether it could continue to have a useful role beyond the pandemic. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-five telephone surveys were conducted with respondents, most of whom were carers of paediatric outpatients. Questions explored the child's underlying condition, respondents' attitudes towards the service received, social factors including distance previously travelled to the hospital and whether they would find ongoing telephone review acceptable or not. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of respondents expressed a positive interest in ongoing telephone consultations. They commented particularly on compatibility with work commitments, childcare arrangements and travel times. Those travelling more than 1 h were particularly positive in their support. Respondents expressed the continued need for face-to-face review if the child's condition changed acutely. CONCLUSION: Telephone consultations are an acceptable means of improving clinic punctuality, accessibility and convenience for families in rural areas, with ongoing potential beyond the pandemic. Careful consideration is required of the individual's needs and requirement for physical examination when extending the use of telephone consultations.

Are telephone consultations here to stay in rheumatology?

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face rheumatology follow-up appointments were mostly replaced with telephone or virtual consultations in order to protect vulnerable patients. We aimed to investigate the perspectives of rheumatology patients on the use of telephone consultations compared with the traditional face-to-face consultation. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective survey of all rheumatology follow-up patients at the Royal Wolverhampton Trust who had received a telephone consultation from a rheumatology consultant during a 4-week period via an online survey tool. RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 1213 patients, of whom 336 (27.7%) responded, and 306 (91.1%) patients completed all components of the survey. Overall, an equal number of patients would prefer telephone clinics or face-to-face consultations for their next routine appointment. When divided by age group, the majority who preferred the telephone clinics were <50 years old [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 10.075, P = 0.018]. Prevalence of a smartphone was higher among younger patients (<50 years old: 46 of 47, 97.9%) than among older patients (≥50 years old: 209 of 259, 80.7%) [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 20.919, P < 0.001]. More patients reported that they would prefer a telephone call for urgent advice (168, 54.9%). CONCLUSION: Most patients interviewed were happy with their routine face-to-face appointment being switched to a telephone consultation. Of those interviewed, patients >50 years old were less likely than their younger counterparts to want telephone consultations in place of face-to-face appointments. Most patients in our study would prefer a telephone consultation for urgent advice. We must ensure that older patients and those in vulnerable groups who value in-person contact are not excluded. Telephone clinics in some form are here to stay in rheumatology for the foreseeable future.