Novel ENT live telehealth and live video-otoscopy clinics in remote Australia: outcomes and comparisons to traditional clinic models.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 challenged the delivery of healthcare in Australia, disproportionately impacting vulnerable patients, including Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples and those living in remote regions. The otolaryngology service provided to remote Western Australia adapted to these barriers by altering clinical consultations to a digital model. METHODS: A review was undertaken of patients in regional Western Australia. Demographics and clinical outcomes from 20 live telehealth clinics were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 16 face-to-face clinics. RESULTS: The demographics of patients reviewed in both live telehealth and face-to-face clinics were similar, except for a larger proportion of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander patients utilising telehealth. The outcomes of patients reviewed through each model of care were comparable. Live video-otoscopy provided diagnostic quality images in 92 per cent of cases. CONCLUSION: The findings of our review suggest that, despite its limitations, a large proportion of ENT patients may be safely assessed through a live telehealth model.

Comparison of three modalities of teleophthalmology delivery in regional Western Australia during the COVID-19 lock-down.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In conjunction with local optometry services, telehealth may be used in to provide specialist care for patients living in rural areas underserved by ophthalmology. BACKGROUND: To combat travel restrictions for specialist outreach to regional areas during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, Lions Outback Vision introduced three different modalities of teleophthalmology consultations; home-based telephone, hospital-based video, and optometry-based video. This study evaluated the utility of these in providing specialist care to rural patients during the pandemic. METHODS: Data from patients referred during the COVID-19 lock-down period (23 March 2020 to 5 June 2020) were analysed. If sufficient clinical information and imaging were available then ophthalmologists conducted home-based telephone consultations. If further ocular imaging or examination was required, then optometry-based video or hospital-based video were used. Data were analysed using ANOVA and two-sided t tests for continuous data and Chi Square statistics for categorical data (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Majority of the 431 consultations were conducted via home telephone (38%) or optometry-based video (37%). Indigenous patients (p = 0.014) and patients in very remote communities (p < 0.01) were more likely to receive a home-based telephone consultation. Because sufficient clinical information had already been obtained for home-based consultations, these patients were more likely to be booked for surgery than optometry (p < 0.01).Cataracts were the predominant diagnosis in optometry consults compared to hospital (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Primary optometry and home telephone represent a new modality for providing specialist care for patients living in very remote regions and for Indigenous patients. When appropriate clinical testing has been completed, telephone-based ophthalmology may continue to be useful for certain conditions such as waitlisting patients for cataract surgery and should continue to be funded beyond the duration of the pandemic for rural patients.