Comment on "poison control centers and alternative forms of communicating with the public": short messaging service (SMS) might also be useful for follow-up with patients who have contacted poison control centers

Short message service as a tool for mass follow-up of patients requesting a poison centre: a retrospective comparative study in France

INTRODUCTION

The short message service is an alternative to telephone follow-up of exposure cases reported to poison centres. The aim of this study was to compare the proportion of exposure cases successfully followed up and the respective cost of telephone and short message service follow-up between two poison centres, one using both methods of follow-up (Paris centre) and the other using telephone follow-up only (Nancy centre).

METHODS

In 2021, we included cases eligible for short message service follow-up at both centres. Eligibility criteria were calls from the public reporting non-toxic or minor toxic exposure not requiring medical consultation. We collected the follow-up type (telephone/short message service) and outcome (success/failure). The cost of each type of follow-up was estimated.

RESULTS

In 2021, 16,867 and 11,107 exposure cases were eligible for short message service follow-up at the Paris and Nancy centres, respectively. The Paris centre followed up 86.2 per cent of cases by short message service, and the remainder by telephone, while the Nancy centre followed up all cases by telephone. The Paris centre had a greater follow-up rate compared to the Nancy centre (93.0 per cent versus 43.6 per cent; P < 0.0001). Overall, the success rates were similar between the two centres (P = 0.06), with short message service and telephone follow-up showing comparable success rates (88.1 per cent versus 88.7 per cent; P = 0.25). On average, telephone follow-up took almost twice as long (1.51 min versus 0.85 min) and cost 1.3 times more (0.59 euros versus 0.45 euros) than short message service follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Short message service follow-up allows more patients to be successfully followed up at a lower cost compared to telephone-only follow-up, albeit with potential differences in information quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Short message service follow-up is a promising tool for poison centres to follow up with patients. Further studies are needed to assess the quality of the data collected and caller satisfaction.

Poison control centres and alternative forms of communication: comparison of response rates between text message and telephone follow-up

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the number of patients managed by poison control centres (PCCs) has increased without a proportional increase in the number of physicians. To improve efficiency without neglecting patient follow-up, some PCCs have begun using text messages. We evaluated the difference in response rates between text messaging and traditional telephone follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, monocentric, non-randomised cohort study was conducted using data from calls made by the New Aquitaine PCC between February 27, 2019, and March 31, 2019. Patients were contacted up to three times by a phone call or short message service (SMS).

RESULTS

For the analysis, 823 patients were included. At the end of follow-up, the response rates were similar in the phone call and SMS group (94 vs. 94%; p = 0.76) with median [interquartile range] response times of 0 min [0; 27 min] and 29 min [6; 120 min], respectively. The response rates did not differ in subgroups stratified according to sex, self-poisoning vs. relative response, age class, and solicitation during working hours vs. outside of working hours (all p > 0.5). Moreover, health practitioners required 2.4-fold more time to call than to send text messages (p < 0.001), and all practitioners were satisfied or very satisfied with text messaging implementation.

CONCLUSION

Patients had good adherence to text messages. Text messages are easy to use, rapid, and allow the physician to easily prioritise follow-up without occupying the emergency line. Additionally, the costs of installation and maintenance are low for text message systems; these low costs facilitate the implementation of such services in various medical situations.