Patient and Physician Assessments of Clinical Status: A Mixed-methods Study of Interstitial Lung Disease.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitated novel health care delivery for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), including reduced in-person appointments and physiologic testing to minimize transmission. Clinicians often have been required to rely on patients' subjective assessments of their clinical status during phone follow-up appointments. It is unknown how accurate a patient's self-assessment is compared with that of their physician during an in-person evaluation. Research Question: Are patients' self-assessments of their clinical status in agreement with their physicians' assessments, and are telemedicine vs in-person visits acceptable? Study Design and Methods: Patients were enrolled prospectively from the University of Calgary ILD clinic. Participants were asked by phone before the in-person appointment and after the appointment to rate their clinical status on a five-point Likert scale. Physicians then rated the patient's clinical status after the appointment on a similar five-point Likert scale, masked to patient responses. Patients and physicians were asked if an in-person appointment was necessary or if telemedicine would have sufficed. Clinical variables associated with physician assessments were assessed. Results: Fifty patients with mean age of 67 ± 11.8 years participated. Mean time since last follow-up was 5.0 ± 3.0 months. No correlation was found between the preclinical patient self-assessment and postclinical physician assessment ( Interpretation: Telemedicine may improve access to care for patients during pandemic management, in rural communities, and for those with impaired mobility. Despite these benefits, our data support that patients and physicians may not agree on determination of clinical status and that patients generally prefer in-person patient-physician interactions.