A prospective, multisite study analyzing the percentage of urological cases that can be completely managed by telemedicine

Factors contributing to telemedicine efficacy in pediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

Despite swift implementation of telemedicine with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there is a paucity of research on its use for management of pediatric urology patients. Specifically, there is limited knowledge and inconsistent data on the effectiveness of telemedicine for various pediatric urologic conditions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of pediatric urological care provided via video visits (VVs) at a large tertiary care children's hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a prospective assessment of pediatric urology patients younger than 21 years who had a VV between 5/18/2022 and 5/17/2023. New patients with a testicular diagnosis were not eligible for VVs. After entering the diagnosis and submitting billing using a modifier for telemedicine, clinicians were mandated to select whether the VV allowed for: complete case management (CCM), suboptimal case management (SCM), or incomplete case management (ICM) requiring an in-person visit. Case management categorizations were analyzed according to patient pathology, visit type (i.e., new or established), and patient-centered variables including age, sex, race, insurance type, need for an interpreter, and distress score [a proxy for socioeconomic status].

RESULTS

During the one-year period, there were 3267 telemedicine patients with a median age of 9 years (IQR 3-13) and 57.0% were male. Most VVs (89.3%) were established encounters. Almost 12% of telemedicine patients had external organ pathology (EOP, e.g., phimosis), 43.0% had internal organ pathology (IOP, e.g., hydronephrosis), and 45.1% had functional urological pathology (FUP, e.g., dysfunctional voiding). Clinicians deemed 96.9%, 2.7%, and 0.5% of VVs as having CCM, SCM or ICM, respectively. Telemedicine patients with IOP or FUP were more likely to have CCM, than those with EOP (98.5% and 97.8% vs 87.1%, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patient age, pathology, and visit type were predictive of VV efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Now that telemedicine use has slowed, it is necessary to evaluate and establish its optimal role in pediatric urology. Factors associated with VV efficacy included older patient age, internal organ or functional urological pathology, and established encounters. The long-term success of telemedicine requires suitable patient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine is quite effective for the management of a wide variety of pediatric urology patients. Continued evaluation of telemedicine, including multi-institutional investigation and corroboration, is necessary for the development of evidence-based best practice guidelines regarding appropriate, safe, and effective integration of telemedicine that drives pediatric urological care forward to meet the demands of the future.

Characterizing digital access in pediatric urology

BACKGROUND

Virtual medicine has the potential to improve access for underserved populations by facilitating timely remote evaluation. However, challenges in the real-world implementation of this technology may paradoxically exacerbate health disparities. We sought to characterize families' digital access and how social determinants of health may impact virtual medicine access within pediatric urology. We hypothesized that disadvantaged socioeconomic status would be a barrier to virtual medicine access.

STUDY DESIGN

A digital access screening tool was prospectively developed and launched in July 2021. Schedulers are prompted to complete this optional screening questionnaire at the time of patient intake, for video or in-person encounters. The parent is screened for access to a device and reliable internet or cellular data that could be used to participate in a video visit. These represented the primary study outcomes. A modality preference for an in-person visit, video visit, or no preference was also recorded. Patient demographics were retrospectively evaluated, and socioeconomic status was estimated using the Distressed Communities Index generated for each patient's zip code. For each zip code, the Distressed Communities Index produces a normalized, comparative distress score ranging from 0 ("prosperous") to 100 ("distressed").

RESULTS

3885 patients were included, with median age of 5 years (IQR 1-11). Almost 74% were male, 71.3% were White, 20.9% had public insurance, and 2.9% required an interpreter. The median distress score was 14.2 (IQR 7.2-27.5). Screening revealed that 136 families (3.5%) lacked digital access. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, insurance type (p = 0.0020) and distress score (p = 0.0125) were significant predictors of digital access (Summary Table). Those patients who lacked access to a device (p < 0.0001) or reliable internet/cellular data (p < 0.0001) were more likely to prefer an in-person visit.

DISCUSSION

Family screening revealed that there is a small but significant proportion of families who lack digital access, and this cohort disproportionately represents underserved communities with higher distress scores, likely reflecting lower socioeconomic status. Those families without digital access were more likely to prefer an in-person visit. Improved identification of these socially complex "at-risk" patients can assist in the development of more inclusive health care strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the chance for virtual medicine to expand access for underserved populations, lack of digital tools may hinder its potential impact on health disparities in pediatric urology. Ongoing digital access screening and further studies are needed to design interventions tailored to the specific needs of our patients, allowing for more equitable pediatric urological care.

Perception and satisfaction of patients after telemedicine urology consultations: A matched analysis with physicians' perspective

INTRODUCTION

During the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation.

METHODS

We contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS).

RESULTS

Of 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.

Hybrid Clinics: A New Model for Ambulatory Care to Reduce Infection Risk

Objectives: To assess the viability of a hybrid clinic model combining in-person examination with video-based consultation to minimize viral transmission risk. Methods: Data were collected prospectively in a pediatric urology clinic for in-person visits from January to April 2018 ("classic") and hybrid visits from October to December 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic ("hybrid"). Variables included provider, diagnosis, patient type, time of day, prior surgery, postoperative status, and decision-making for surgery. The primary outcome was "room time" or time in-person. The secondary outcome was "total time" or visit duration. Proportion of visits involving close contact (room time ≥15 min) was assessed. Univariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test. Mixed models were fitted for visit approach and other covariates as fixed effects and provider as random effect. Results: Data were collected for 346 visits (256 classic, 90 hybrid). Hybrid visits were associated with less room time (median 3 min vs. 10 min, p < 0.001) but greater total time (median 13.5 min vs. 10 min, p = 0.001) as compared with classic visits. On multivariate analysis, hybrid visits were associated with 3 min less room time (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: -5.3 to -1.7, p < 0.001) but 3.8 min more total time (95% CI: 1.5-6.1, p = 0.001). Close contact occurred in 6.7% of hybrid visits, as compared with 34.8% of classic visits (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Hybrid clinic visits reduce room time as compared with classic visits. This approach overcomes the examination limitations of telemedicine while minimizing viral transmission, and represents a viable model for ambulatory care whenever close contact carries infection risk.

Virtual consultation in paediatric urology during the COVID-19 pandemic: The effect of pathology on the outcome

Introduction

Virtual consultation (VC) has exponentially increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lessons from using this modality during the pandemic will need to be appraised carefully before integrating it into the routine practice. Some paediatric urology patients can potentially be excellent candidates for routine VC.

Objectives

Investigate the ability of clinicians to make management plans using VCs and identify accordingly the group of patients that can benefit from routine VC. Evaluate the routine use of VC without travel restrictions.

Methods

Designed in two phases. Phase 1, during the lockdown, prospective collection of data after the consultation assessing the clinician satisfaction in making a decision by VC. The results were then divided according to the patient pathology; internal organ pathology (IOP), functional urological pathology (FUP) or external organ pathology (EOP). Data was then analysed to demonstrate if different outcomes can be related to the pathology. Phase 2 after the ease of the lockdown to judge the lessons learnt looking at the same parameters in patients who are selected to receive VC and evaluate journey saved by the patients, measured in miles.

Results

One hundred and forty-four consultations were assessed. One hundred and fourteen in phase 1 and 30 from phase 2. Mean age 7.2 years. In phase 1, 57% of patients were reviewed by consultants and 72% were followed up. Thirty-seven per cent had IOP, 24.5% FUP and 38.5% EOP. Clinicians were more likely to reach a decision with patients with IOP and FUP P < 0.0001 and 0.0024, respectively. Phase 2 demonstrated the change of practice where 93% of the patients were either IOP or FUP. An average of 27 miles per patient was saved on journeys.

Discussion

VC for paediatric urology patients was employed effectively to avoid hospital contact during the lockdown. From the lessons learnt that patients with IOP and FUP can continue to benefit from VC after the ease of lockdown without compromising the decision making. VC is a viable way to structure services in the future for selected paediatric urology conditions.

[Mobile applications (apps) for diagnosis and treatment control in pediatric and adolescent medicine]

Die Digitalisierung hält in der Medizin in vielfältigster Form Einzug. Ob patientenzentriert, vernetzend, zur Unterstützung medizinischen Fachpersonals oder in der (klinischen) Forschung: Digitale Technologien sind aus dem medizinischen Alltag spätestens seit der durch das SARS-CoV-2 Virus ausgelösten Pandemie nicht mehr wegzudenken. Hierbei zählen u. a. mobile Smartphone-Anwendungen zu den häufigsten Entwicklungen. Doch die Vielzahl der erhältlichen Produkte und der Zeitmangel in der medizinischen Praxis machen eine zuverlässige Einschätzung der Qualität, Sicherheit und Funktionalität oft schwer. Der vorliegende Übersichtsbeitrag fasst aktuelle Entwicklungen „mobiler“ Technologien aus dem Bereich der Kinder- und Jugendmedizin zusammen und veranschaulicht erhältliche Anwendungen anhand konkreter Beispiele. Ziel ist es, die Leser:innen zu animieren, eigene Erfahrungen zu machen und ihren Blick für evtl. Risiken zu schärfen.