Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35311688›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Exploring Patient and Staff Experiences With Video Consultations During COVID-19 in an English Outpatient Care Setting: Secondary Data Analysis of Routinely Collected Feedback Data.

Hannah Bradwell, Rebecca Baines, Katie J Edwards, Sebastian Stevens, Kate Atkinson, Ellen Wilkinson, Arunangsu Chatterjee, Ray B Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The effect of Covid-19 on the willingness to use video consultations among orthopedic and trauma outpatients: a multi-center survey in 1400 outpatients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

Hannah BradwellCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-1069
Rebecca BainesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9857-1976
Katie J EdwardsCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6212-6010
Sebastian StevensCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4997-2591
Kate AtkinsonCornwall Partnership National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cornwall, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-7302
Ellen WilkinsonCornwall Partnership National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cornwall, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8564-9201
Arunangsu ChatterjeeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9506-6007
Ray B JonesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-3421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVideo consultations (VCs) were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19 despite modest progress before.

objectiveWe aim to explore staff and patient experiences with VCs implemented during COVID-19 and use feedback insights to support quality improvement and service development.

methodsSecondary data analysis was conducted on 955 patient and 521 staff responses (from 4234 consultations; 955/4234, 22.6% and 521/4234, 12.3%, respectively) routinely collected following a VC between June and July 2020 in a rural, older adult, and outpatient care setting at a National Health Service Trust. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis and presented to Trust stakeholders.

resultsMost patients (890/955, 93.2%) reported having good (210/955, 22%) or very good (680/955, 71.2%) experience with VCs and felt listened to and understood (904/955, 94.7%). Most patients accessed their VC alone (806/955, 84.4%) except for those aged ≥71 years (23/58, 40%), with ease of joining VCs negatively associated with age (P<.001). Despite more difficulties joining, older adults were most likely to be satisfied with the technology (46/58, 79%). Patients and staff generally felt that patients' needs had been met (860/955, 90.1% and 453/521, 86.9%, respectively), although staff appeared to overestimate patient dissatisfaction with VC outcomes (P=.02). Patients (848/955, 88.8%) and staff (419/521, 80.5%) felt able to communicate everything they wanted, although patients were significantly more positive than staff (P<.001). Patient satisfaction with communication was positively associated with technical performance satisfaction (P<.001). Most staff members (466/521, 89.4%) reported positive (185/521, 35.5%) or very positive (281/521, 53.9%) experiences with joining and managing VCs. Staff reported reductions in carbon footprint (380/521, 72.9%) and time (373/521, 71.6%). Most patients (880/955, 92.1%) would choose VCs again. We identified three themes in responses: barriers, including technological difficulties, patient information, and suitability concerns; potential benefits, including reduced stress, enhanced accessibility, cost, and time savings; and suggested improvements, including trial calls, turning music off, photo uploads, expanding written character limit, supporting other internet browsers, and shared online screens. This routine feedback, including evidence to suggest that patients were more satisfied than clinicians had anticipated, was presented to relevant Trust stakeholders, allowing for improved processes and supporting the development of a business case to inform the Trust decision on continuing VCs beyond COVID-19 restrictions.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the importance of regularly reviewing and responding to routine feedback following digital service implementation. The feedback helped the Trust improve the VC service, challenge clinician-held assumptions about patient experience, and inform future use of VCs. It has focused improvement efforts on patient information; technological improvements such as blurred backgrounds and interactive whiteboards; and responding to the needs of patients with dementia, communication or cognitive impairment, or lack of appropriate technology. These findings have implications for other health care providers.

Indexed as

Attend AnywhereCOVID-19outpatientspandemicpatient experiencepatient feedbackremote consultationstaff feedbackvideo consultations

Identifiers

PMID35311688
PMCPMC8989384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.