ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on virtual phone consultation in vascular surgery.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe pandemic limited our capacity for face-to-face (F2F) outpatient clinics and therefore we set up virtual phone consultation clinics (VPC). Our study evaluated patients' and clinicians' perspectives on our VPC and identified areas for improvement.
methodsWe designed a questionnaire for patients and a questionnaire for clinicians. These included questions on satisfaction with VPC, practical aspects of VPC and suggestions for improvement. Between December 2021 and February 2022, one hundred patients and 11 clinicians completed these questionnaires.
resultsThe average satisfaction score for the patients' last VPC attendance was 4.42/5 (SD 0.90). The main benefits of VPC from the perspective of patients were: reduced risk of infection, the convenience of not needing to travel and increased efficiency. A large proportion of the patients were unaware that an F2F clinic attendance could be requested instead of a VPC. 3 patients suggested that we could do video calls. 52 patients indicated that they would prefer an F2F attendance for their next review.The average satisfaction score for our clinicians was 4.19 (SD 0.98). Our clinicians believed that the advantages of VPC were increased efficiency, reduced risk of infection and lower cost. Clinicians felt that patients who needed to be told about normal scan results and patients who could not travel were most suitable for VPC. The most notable disadvantage of VPC was the inability to perform a physical examination and our clinicians felt that this could delay treatment. Some clinicians felt that giving patients a written summary of the VPC would be beneficial.
conclusionOur patients and staff were satisfied with our VPC programme and understand its advantages. Our study provided justification for the continued use of VPC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.