Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482950›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

Virtual Specialist Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multimethod Patient Experience Study.

Katie N Dainty, M Bianca Seaton, Antonio Estacio, Lisa K Hicks, Trevor Jamieson, Sarah Ward, Catherine H Yu, Jeffrey D Mosko, Charles D Kassardjian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katie N DaintyNorth York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2906-8813
M Bianca SeatonNorth York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6971-5352
Antonio EstacioSt Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8946-7923
Lisa K HicksSt Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1858-7420
Trevor JamiesonSt Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1050-3918
Sarah WardSt Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8229-6287
Catherine H YuSt Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2355-1046
Jeffrey D Mosko *St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2983-524X
Charles D Kassardjian *St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7117-8787
St. Michael's Hospital · CANorth York General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransitioning nonemergency, ambulatory medical care to virtual visits in light of the COVID-19 global pandemic has been a massive shift in philosophy and practice that naturally came with a steep learning curve for patients, physicians, and clinic administrators.

objectiveWe undertook a multimethod study to understand the key factors associated with successful and less successful experiences of virtual specialist care, particularly as they relate to the patient experience of care.

methodsThis study was designed as a multimethod patient experience study using survey methods, descriptive qualitative interview methodology, and administrative virtual care data collected by the hospital decision support team. Six specialty departments participated in the study (endoscopy, orthopedics, neurology, hematology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology). All patients who could speak and read English and attended a virtual specialist appointment in a participating clinic at St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) between October 1, 2020, and January 30, 2021, were eligible to participate.

resultsDuring the study period, 51,702 virtual specialist visits were conducted in the departments that participated in the study. Of those, 96% were conducted by telephone and 4% by video. In both the survey and interview data, there was an overall consensus that virtual care is a satisfying alternative to in-person care, with benefits such as reduced travel, cost, time, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and increased convenience. Our analysis further revealed that the specific reason for the visit and the nature and status of the medical condition are important considerations in terms of guidance on where virtual care is most effective. Technology issues were not reported as a major challenge in our data, given that the majority of "virtual" visits reported by our participants were conducted by telephone, which is an important distinction. Despite the positive value of virtual care discussed by the majority of interview participants, 50% of the survey respondents still indicated they would prefer to see their physician in person.

conclusionsPatient experience data collected in this study indicate a high level of satisfaction with virtual specialty care, but also signal that there are nuances to be considered to ensure it is an appropriate and sustainable part of the standard of care.

Indexed as

care dataCOVID-19decision supportmedical carepatient experiencespecialist caretelehealthvideo consultationvirtual carevirtual health

Identifiers

PMID35482950
PMCPMC9239568
OpenAlexW4225136235

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.