RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine was increasingly adopted in otolaryngology as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but how it compares to in-person visits over the longitudinal course of the pandemic has not been characterized. This study compares telemedicine visits to in-person visits on measures of clinical efficiency and patient satisfaction. METHODS: We examined all in-person and telemedicine encounters that occurred during the 13-month period from April 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021 at a pediatric otolaryngology clinic associated with a large tertiary care children's hospital. We compared patient demographics, primary encounter diagnoses, completions, cancellations, no-shows, cycle time, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 19 541 (90.5%) in-person visits and 2051 (9.5%) telemedicine visits were scheduled over the study period. There was no difference in patient age or gender between the visit types. There was a difference in race (75% White or Caucasian for in-person and 73% for telemedicine, P = .007) and average travel distance (53.3 miles for in-person vs 71.0 for telemedicine, P = .000). The most common primary diagnosis was Eustachian tube dysfunction for in-person visits (11.8%) and sleep disordered breathing for telemedicine visits (13.7%). Completion rate was greater for telemedicine visits (52.4% in-person vs 62.5% telemedicine). Cancellations were greater for in-person visits (42.6% in-person vs 24.2% telemedicine), but no-shows were greater for telemedicine (5.0% in-person vs 13.3% telemedicine, all P = .000). Average cycle time was shorter for telemedicine visits (56.5 minutes in-person vs 47.6 minutes telemedicine, P = .000). Patient satisfaction with provider interactions and overall care experience was high for both visit types. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine was utilized more during months of heightened COVID-19 cases, with higher completion rates, fewer cancellations, shorter cycle times, saved travel distance, and comparable patient satisfaction to in-person visits. Telemedicine has the potential to remain an efficient mode of care delivery in the post-pandemic era.
RESUMO
Bone fractures represent an enormous societal and economic burden as one of the most prevalent causes of disability worldwide. Each year, nearly 15 million people are affected by fractures in the United States alone. Data indicate that the blood supply is critical for fracture healing; as data indicate that concomitant bone and vascular injury are major risk factors for non-union. However, the various role(s) that the vasculature plays remains speculative. Fracture stabilization dictates stem cell fate choices during repair. In stabilized fractures stem cells differentiate directly into osteoblasts and heal the injury by intramembranous ossification. In contrast, in non-stable fractures stem cells differentiate into chondrocytes and the bone heals through endochondral ossification, where a cartilage template transforms into bone as the chondrocytes transform into osteoblasts. One suggested role of the vasculature has been to participate in the stem cell fate decisions due to delivery of oxygen. In stable fractures, the blood vessels are thought to remain intact and promote osteogenesis, while in non-stable fractures, continual disruption of the vasculature creates hypoxia that favors formation of cartilage, which is avascular. However, recent data suggests that non-stable fractures are more vascularized than stable fractures, that oxygen does not appear associated with differentiation of stem cells into chondrocytes and osteoblasts, that cartilage is not hypoxic, and that oxygen, not sustained hypoxia, is required for angiogenesis. These unexpected results, which contrast other published studies, are indicative of the need to better understand the complex, spatio-temporal regulation of vascularization and oxygenation in fracture healing. This work has also revealed that oxygen, along with the promotion of angiogenesis, may be novel adjuvants that can stimulate healing in select patient populations.
