Where Are We Headed? Diagnosing Abnormal Head Shapes Through Virtual Care Visits.

PURPOSE: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in early March, there has been a push to expand virtual patient care visits instead of in-person clinic visits. Studies have found that telemedicine can provide efficient triaging, reduction in emergency room visits, and conservation of health care resources and personnel. Although virtual patient care has been implicated in providing similar outcomes to traditional face-to-face care in patients affected with coronavirus disease 2019, there are a lack of studies on the effectiveness of virtual care visits (VCVs) for patients with craniosynostosis or deformational plagiocephaly. This study aims to develop an understanding of whether physicians can accurately diagnose pediatric patients with craniosynostosis or deformational plagiocephaly via VCVs, and whether they can determine if affected patients will benefit from helmet correction or if surgical treatment is required. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective chart analysis over a 4-month period (March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020) was performed analyzing all pediatric patients (<18 years old) who underwent virtual care calls for diagnosis and treatment of abnormal head shape. Patients were referred to UT Physicians Pediatric Surgery clinic for evaluation by a member of the Texas Cleft-Craniofacial Team (2 surgeons or 1 physician's assistant). Variables such as patient demographics, diagnosis, and need for confirmation were pulled and recorded from Allscripts Electronic Medical Records software. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were identified who fit our search criteria. Out of these patients, eleven (31.43%) cases were diagnosed with craniosynostosis, twenty-two (62.86%) cases were diagnosed with deformational plagiocephaly, and 2 (5.71%) cases were diagnosed as being normocephalic. Median age at virtual care evaluation was 14.10 months (Interquartile Range [IQR] 5.729, 27.542) for patients diagnosed with craniosynostosis and 6.51 months (IQR 4.669, 7.068) for patients diagnosed with deformational plagiocephaly. All eleven (100%) patients diagnosed with craniosynostosis were referred for a confirmatory computed tomography scan before undergoing surgical intervention and saw an alleviation in head shape postoperatively. Eighteen (81.82%) of patients diagnosed with deformational plagiocephaly were recommended to undergo conservative treatment and the remaining 4 (18.18%) were recommended for helmet therapy. Two cases were unable to be diagnosed virtually. These patients needed a follow-up visit in person to establish a diagnosis and plan of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care visits are increasing in frequency and this includes consultations for abnormal head shapes. Our experience demonstrates that the majority of patients can be evaluated safely in this modality, with only 5.71% requiring additional imaging or in-person visits to confirm the diagnosis. Our study underscores the feasibility of virtually diagnosing and recommending a plan for treatment in pediatric patients with abnormal head shapes. This information can be implemented to further our knowledge on the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment options for patients with craniosynostosis and deformational plagiocephaly. Further analyses are needed to quantify the financial and patient-reported outcomes of VCVs for these patients.

Outcomes of a virtual craniofacial clinic for assessing plagiocephaly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to carry out a quantitative analysis of a virtual craniofacial clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The charts of 90 patients from a single institution were reviewed. Of these patients, 45 visited the virtual clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. The other 45 patients visited the clinic in the 3 months prior to COVID-19. Demographics including the mean age at the visit, chief complaint, visit diagnosis, appointment duration, helmet usage, accuracy of the diagnosis, need for a CT scan, and the need for a follow-up appointment were assessed. Diagnostic accuracy, the frequency of follow-up appointments, and patient satisfaction (via survey), as well as additional associated factors, were analyzed to determine the efficacy and satisfaction associated with the virtual clinic approach. RESULTS: The mean patient age at time of the visit was 5.6 and 7.3 months (p = 0.244), and the mean time from referral to appointment was 19.2 and 19 days (p = 0.934), in the in-person and virtual cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the variety of chief complaints between the in-person and virtual visits, with 97.8% and 93.3% of patients' parents reporting abnormal head shape, respectively, and the remainder reporting more infrequent complaints (p = 0.435). The visit diagnosis was plagiocephaly in 93.3% of the in-person cohort and 80.0% of the virtual cohort (p = 0.118). The final diagnosis exhibited a similar pattern, with 95.6% of the in-person cohort and 88.9% of the virtual cohort observed as positional plagiocephaly; the remaining diagnoses were more infrequent (p = 0.434). The most common alternative diagnosis in the virtual visit cohort was a metopic ridge (8.4%). In the in-person visit cohort, the most common alternative diagnosis was equally a benign enlargement of the subarachnoid space in infancy, scalp mass, and skull lesion (2.2% each). None of the patients in either cohort were diagnosed with synostosis. Eighty percent of the in-person visits were 15 to 30 minutes in duration, with the remaining 20% being 31 minutes or longer; virtual visits were all 30 minutes or less, with 95.6% being 15 to 30 minutes (p = 0.002). Helmets were prescribed for 2 patients in the in-person cohort and no patients in the virtual cohort (p = 0.494). Alterations in diagnosis were made in 2.2% of in-person visits and 6.7% of virtual visits (p = 0.616). Follow-up was required in 15.6% of the in-person visits and 31.1% of the virtual visits (p = 0.134). CT was only utilized twice, once in the in-person visit cohort and once in the virtual visit cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual clinic encounters resulted in comparable diagnostic accuracy. The trend toward frequent follow-up assessments and changes in the final diagnosis in the virtual clinic cohort has indicated a level of diagnostic uncertainty via the virtual interface, which required in-person assessment for confirmation. This finding did not contribute toward diagnostic inaccuracy with respect to missed synostosis. The study results have indicated that telemedicine can be an effective modality in assessing craniofacial pathology.