Patient satisfaction in shoulder arthroscopy: telemedicine vs. clinic follow-up visits.
Arthroscopy
Shoulder
Telemedicine
Journal
Clinics in shoulder and elbow
ISSN: 2288-8721
Titre abrégé: Clin Shoulder Elb
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101658558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
30
10
2021
accepted:
07
12
2021
pubmed:
12
5
2022
medline:
12
5
2022
entrez:
11
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of telemedicine for postoperative visits is increasing, especially in rural areas. Few studies have investigated its use for arthroscopic shoulder patients. This study aims to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine for postoperative clinic visits following arthroscopic shoulder procedures in a rural setting. Patients were prospectively enrolled using the following exclusion criteria: <18 years, open procedures, and non-compliance follow-up at 6 weeks postoperatively. All patients completed a 13-question satisfaction survey, while telemedicine patients completed an additional, separate seven-question survey. Patients who switched groups completed a four-question prompt to determine the reasons for switching. Differences between groups were evaluated by either Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test. The study enrolled 32 patients, with five patients following up by telemedicine and 27 in person. Age and distance from clinic were similar between patients who were assigned to the telemedicine group, completed the telemedicine visit, and opted for in-person visits (all p>0.05). Patient satisfaction did not vary significantly based on care by the surgeon, concerns being addressed, thoroughness of visit, overall clinical assessment at a prior visit, and improvements in pain and physical function (all p>0.05). Among patients who opted out of telemedicine visits, the most common reason was a preference to meet in-person but these patients agreed that telemedicine visits are a good idea. Regardless of type of follow-up, individuals reported similar levels of satisfaction with treatment during the visit and improvements in pain and physical function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of telemedicine for postoperative visits is increasing, especially in rural areas. Few studies have investigated its use for arthroscopic shoulder patients. This study aims to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine for postoperative clinic visits following arthroscopic shoulder procedures in a rural setting.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients were prospectively enrolled using the following exclusion criteria: <18 years, open procedures, and non-compliance follow-up at 6 weeks postoperatively. All patients completed a 13-question satisfaction survey, while telemedicine patients completed an additional, separate seven-question survey. Patients who switched groups completed a four-question prompt to determine the reasons for switching. Differences between groups were evaluated by either Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study enrolled 32 patients, with five patients following up by telemedicine and 27 in person. Age and distance from clinic were similar between patients who were assigned to the telemedicine group, completed the telemedicine visit, and opted for in-person visits (all p>0.05). Patient satisfaction did not vary significantly based on care by the surgeon, concerns being addressed, thoroughness of visit, overall clinical assessment at a prior visit, and improvements in pain and physical function (all p>0.05). Among patients who opted out of telemedicine visits, the most common reason was a preference to meet in-person but these patients agreed that telemedicine visits are a good idea.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of type of follow-up, individuals reported similar levels of satisfaction with treatment during the visit and improvements in pain and physical function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35545248
pii: cise.2021.00619
doi: 10.5397/cise.2021.00619
pmc: PMC9185120
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
106-111Références
JAMA. 2016 May 10;315(18):2015-6
pubmed: 27163991
Orthopedics. 2021 Jul-Aug;44(4):198-206
pubmed: 34292815
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Mar;29(3):e139-45
pubmed: 24983434
J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9 Suppl 2:S44-7
pubmed: 14728759
Control Clin Trials. 1990 Apr;11(2):116-28
pubmed: 2161310
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Apr;29(4):775-783
pubmed: 32197766
J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(4):195-8
pubmed: 21398389
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Jan 1;479(1):47-56
pubmed: 33009231
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jan 19;93(2):113-20
pubmed: 21248209
J Rehabil Med. 2013 Apr;45(4):392-6
pubmed: 23474735
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Nov 19;96(22):1910-6
pubmed: 25410510
J Telemed Telecare. 2016 Apr;22(3):192-7
pubmed: 26130735
J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):918-922.e1
pubmed: 24342278
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Dec;478(12):2717-2719
pubmed: 33165045
J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(5):215-20
pubmed: 19590025
Orthop Clin North Am. 2016 Jan;47(1):169-77
pubmed: 26614931
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Mar;31(3):269-75
pubmed: 26269131
J Telemed Telecare. 2017 Feb;23(2):239-247
pubmed: 26940798
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Dec;89(12):2332-41
pubmed: 19061746
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 28;19(4):e142
pubmed: 28455277
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Jul 15;97(14):1129-41
pubmed: 26178888
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jul;24(6):428-433
pubmed: 28449618
Ann Rehabil Med. 2016 Aug;40(4):710-7
pubmed: 27606278
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1972-81
pubmed: 24562873