4.3 Article

Impact of Telemedicine in Pediatric Postoperative Care

期刊

TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 1083-1089

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0246

关键词

telemedicine; pediatrics; postoperative; patient satisfaction; wait time; visit duration; scheduling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A shortage of pediatricians and long wait times in the hospitals render more efficient follow-up visits increasingly important. Virtual visits between physician and patient offer a solution to this problem. Increased awareness, improved technology, and efficient scheduling methods will contribute to the quality and adoption of telemedicine programs. Introduction: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of pediatric telemedicine on wait times and visit durations, as compared with in-person visits. A secondary goal was to assess the efficiency of different scheduling methods for virtual visits. Materials and Methods: The study included >800 postoperative virtual visits from urology, cardiovascular surgery, and ophthalmology, comprising data on wait times, visit duration, and postvisit satisfaction collected through SBR Health and Redcap. In-person visit data were collected on 14 patients in urology, and satisfaction scores were obtained through Press Ganey for urology and ophthalmology. Results: Patients reported very high satisfaction with virtual visits and benefitted from reduced wait times, while receiving care of comparable duration and quality. Longer blocks of time scheduled exclusively for virtual visits correlated with shorter wait times. Discussion: Supplementing health care with telemedicine is a viable way to provide patient-centered care. Implemented effectively, a telemedicine program can contribute greatly to the value a hospital provides to its patients. Conclusions: Virtual visits provide an efficient way to conduct postoperative visits, reducing wait times and increasing physician efficiency while retaining high satisfaction and quality of care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据