A comparison of telemedicine and in-person neurology visits: what are the factors that patients consider when selecting future visit type?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits. BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Ambulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Across visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.

No false elevation in ankle brachial index in patients with tibial plateau fractures and vascular risk factors.

Objectives: The ankle brachial index (ABI) is a useful tool in detection of lower extremity vascular injury. However, diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) may affect extremity perfusion leading to possible false elevation of the ABI value. If true in trauma patients, this can affect initial evaluation, diagnostics, and management. We therefore explored mean ABI values in tibial plateau fractures of patients with vascular risk factors to help determine whether there is a difference. Design: This is a retrospective chart review of patients sustaining tibial plateau fractures with a specific ABI value recorded in the medical record. Patients were identified as either having vascular risk factors or not and data analysis performed to determine if their ABI differed and whether they were more likely to have a vascular injury. Results: 282 acute tibial plateau injuries with specific ABI values were identified, 46 of which carried the risk factors in question. The average risk factor group ABI was 0.95 ±â€¯0.15 versus those without risk factors 1.0 ±â€¯0.15 (p = 0.057). No patient with risk factors required a vascular intervention or four-compartment fasciotomy. Conclusions: This study shows no statistical significance between the presenting ABI of patients with risk factors such as DM, CKD, or PVD and those without those risk factors who sustained acute tibial plateau fractures. Therefore, in general the ABI still holds as a useful screening tool for evaluation of vascular insult in the setting of acute lower extremity trauma.

Rapid Implementation of Outpatient Teleneurology in Rural Appalachia: Barriers and Disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe rapid implementation of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess for disparities in video visit implementation in the Appalachian region of the United States. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients seen in the first 4 weeks of telehealth implementation was identified from the Neurology Ambulatory Practice at a large academic medical center. Telehealth visits defaulted to video, and when unable, phone-only visits were scheduled. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the telehealth visit type: video or phone only. Clinical variables were collected from the electronic medical record including age, sex, race, insurance status, indication for visit, and rural-urban status. Barriers to scheduling video visits were collected at the time of scheduling. Patient satisfaction was obtained by structured postvisit telephone call. RESULTS: Of 1,011 telehealth patient visits, 44% were video and 56% phone only. Patients who completed a video visit were younger (39.7 vs 48.4 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be female (63% vs 55%, p < 0.007), be White or Caucasian (p = 0.024), and not have Medicare or Medicaid insurance (p < 0.001). The most common barrier to scheduling video visits was technology limitations (46%). Although patients from rural and urban communities were equally likely to be scheduled for video visits, patients from rural communities were more likely to consider future telehealth visits (55% vs 42%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rapid implementation of ambulatory telemedicine defaulting to video visits successfully expanded video telehealth. Emerging disparities were revealed, as older, male, Black patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were less likely to complete video visits.

Patient Experiences With Ambulatory Telehealth in Neurology: Results of a Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient experiences with rapid implementation of ambulatory telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was performed to characterize the patients' experience with neurology telehealth visits during the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 response. Consecutive patients who completed a telehealth visit were contacted by telephone. Assenting patients completed a survey quantifying satisfaction with the visit followed by a semistructured telephone interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2,280 telehealth visits were performed, and 753 patients (33%) were reached for postvisit feedback. Of these, 47% of visits were by video and 53% by telephone. Satisfaction was high, with 77% of patients reporting that all needs were met, although only 51% would consider telehealth in the future. Qualitative themes were constructed, suggesting that positive patient experiences were associated not only with the elimination of commute time and associated costs but also with a positive physician interaction. Negative patient experiences were associated with the inability to complete the neurologic examination. Overall, patients tended to view telehealth as a tool that should augment, and not replace, in-person visits. CONCLUSION: In ambulatory telehealth, patients valued convenience, safety, and physician relationship. Barriers were observed but can be addressed.