4.6 Article

Clinic to in-home telemedicine reduces barriers to care for patients with MS or other neuroimmunologic conditions

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000505

关键词

-

资金

  1. National MS Society Career Transition Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To describe the routine use of telemedicine-enabled neurologic care in an academic outpatient MS and neuroimmunology clinic and quantify its role in reducing patient burden. Methods Between January 2017 and December 2017, we surveyed patients and MS neurologists after 50 consecutive routinely scheduled televideo visits and a convenience sample of 100 in-clinic visits. Summary statistics were calculated and comparisons performed. Results Overall, 98% televideo participants found the technology easy to use, and only 17% believed that an in-person examination would have more effectively addressed their needs for the visit. MS neurologists reported achieving their clinical goals in 47/48 (98%) of televideo visits and an adequate physical examination with 2 exceptions (possible cauda equina syndrome and visual field loss). Three emergency department referrals were avoided due to televideo availability. Telemedicine reduced travel burden, including a mean (+/- SD) travel distance of 160 (+/- 196) miles and avoiding overnight lodging and air travel. Telemedicine also reduced indirect costs, including time off work (65% of employed patients) and caregiver burden (30% avoided caregiver time off from work/obligations). Across 8 domains of provider interpersonal communication skills, telemedicine and in-clinic participants rated only 1 domain to be different (eye contact), and overall, 96% of in-clinic and 100% of telemedicine participants agreed/strongly agreed that their clinical goals had been met. Conclusions When incorporated as part of the continuum of MS/neuroimmunology care, clinic to in-home telemedicine reduces travel and caregiver burden and enables efficient, convenient, and effective follow-up.

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

4.6
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