Patient Satisfaction With Telehealth Visits for New Patient Appointments for Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Randomized Trial of Telehealth Versus Standard In-Person Office Visits.

IMPORTANCE: The acceptability and safety of telehealth have been reported in urogynecology for preoperative and postoperative care but not new patient consultation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine if new patient telehealth encounters are noninferior to in-person encounters for women presenting to a urogynecology clinic using a satisfaction questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to describe patient experiences and follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of telehealth versus in-person consults for new patients with any urogynecologic condition was conducted. Patients completed the validated Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire 18 (PSQ-18) after the visit. The primary outcome was composite PSQ-18 score. Using a noninferiority margin of 5 points on the PSQ-18, 25 patients per arm were required with a power of 80% and an α of 0.05. RESULTS: From March to September 2021, 133 patients were screened, 71 were randomized, and 58 were included in the final analysis (30 telehealth and 28 in-person). Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire 18 composite scores were high for both groups but higher for in-person versus telehealth visits (75.68 ± 8.55 vs 66.60 ± 11.80; P = 0.001; difference, 9.08); results were inconclusive with respect to noninferiority. Women in the telehealth group expressed uncertainty regarding the telehealth format. There were no differences in short-term follow-up, communication with the office, or treatment chosen between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Women seen by urogynecologic providers for a new consult both via in-person or telehealth visits demonstrated high satisfaction with their first visit. We were unable to determine if telehealth is noninferior to in-person visits. Our study adds to the literature that telehealth is safe, effective, and acceptable to patients.

Patients' Perceptions on Surgical Care Suspension for Pelvic Floor Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate patients' attitudes toward the postponement of their scheduled procedures for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives were to identify patients who were upset with the postponement of their PFD procedures and to identify factors that are associated with being upset because of the delay in care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study of women from a single urban, academic practice using a novel questionnaire. The study cohort included women whose PFD surgeries or office procedures were postponed between March 17 and April 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ninety-eight women had surgeries postponed; 68 (70%) responded to our questionnaire. Nearly half of the respondents (32/68, 47.1%) were upset about their procedures being postponed. Upset patients reported a greater impact of PFD symptoms on their mood than those who were not upset (P=0.002). Those who were upset were also more likely to report feelings of isolation (P=0.006), fear that their PFD would worsen because of delayed care (P < 0.001), and anxiety over surgery postponement (P < 0.001) than those who were not upset about the delays. When controlling for anxiety, social isolation, and impact of PFD symptom, anxiety (adjusted odds ratio = 15.7; 95% confidence interval = 3.7-66.6) and feeling of isolation (adjusted odds ratio = 9.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.5-63.7) remained associated with increased odds of being upset because of procedure delays. CONCLUSIONS: Half of women whose pelvic reconstructive procedures were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic were upset because of the delay in care, especially those who are emotionally and socially vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic.