Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34992955›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2021

Patient and Clinician Perspectives of New and Return Ambulatory Teleneurology Visits.

Samantha M R Kling, Jessica J Falco-Walter, Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson, Donn W Garvert, Cati G Brown-Johnson, Rebecca Miller-Kuhlmann, Jonathan G Shaw, Steven M Asch, Laurice Yang, Carl A Gold and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Samantha M R KlingEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Jessica J Falco-WalterEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Erika A Saliba-GustafssonEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.ORCID 0000-0003-1587-9591
Donn W GarvertEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Cati G Brown-JohnsonEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Rebecca Miller-KuhlmannEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Jonathan G ShawEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Steven M AschEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Laurice YangEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Carl A GoldEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Marcy WingetEvaluation Sciences Unit (SMRK, EAS-G, DWG, CGB-J, JGS, SMA, MW), Division of Primary Care Population Health, Department of Medicine, and Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (JJF-W, RM-K, LY, CAG), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
Spectrum Stanford Center for clinical and Translational Research and EducationUL1TR001085 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, MARK RICHARD, GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2013 to 2017
$37.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001085NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesTo evaluate the adoption and perceived utility of video visits for new and return patient encounters in ambulatory neurology subspecialties.

methodsVideo visits were launched in an academic, multi-subspecialty, ambulatory neurology clinic in March 2020. Adoption of video visits for new and return patient visits was assessed using clinician-level scheduling data from March 22 to May 16, 2020. Perceived utility of video visits was explored via a clinician survey and semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients/caregivers. Findings were compared across 5 subspecialties and 2 visit types (new vs return).

resultsVideo visits were adopted rapidly; all clinicians (n = 65) integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 weeks, and 92% of visits were conducted via video, although this varied by subspecialty. Utility of video visits was higher for return than new patient visits, as indicated by surveyed (n = 48) and interviewed clinicians (n = 30), aligning with adoption patterns. Compared with in-person visits, clinicians believed that it was easier to achieve a similar physical examination, patient-clinician rapport, and perceived quality of care over video for return rather than new patient visits. Of the 25 patients/caregivers interviewed, most were satisfied with the care provided via video, regardless of visit type, with the main limitation being the physical examination. DISCUSSION: Teleneurology was robustly adopted for both new and return ambulatory neurology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Return patient visits were preferred over new patient visits, but both were feasible. These results provide a foundation for developing targeted guidelines for sustaining teleneurology in ambulatory care.

Identifiers

PMID34992955
PMCPMC8723969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.