Your browser doesn't support javascript.
A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.
Metcalfe, Christopher; Gaskell, Peter; McLelland, Thomas; Patel, Sanjay; Muzaffar, Jameel; Dalton, Lucy; Coulson, Chris.
  • Metcalfe C; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK. christophermetcalfe@nhs.net.
  • Gaskell P; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  • McLelland T; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  • Patel S; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  • Muzaffar J; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  • Dalton L; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  • Coulson C; Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 2022 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2272010
ABSTRACT

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.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal subject: Otolaryngology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S00405-022-07653-8

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal subject: Otolaryngology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S00405-022-07653-8