初级保健机构中腰痛和头痛视频就诊的临床效果

Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen
{"title":"初级保健机构中腰痛和头痛视频就诊的临床效果","authors":"Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen","doi":"10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.","PeriodicalId":199163,"journal":{"name":"Practice management and organization","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effectiveness of video visits for low back pain and headache in a primary care setting\",\"authors\":\"Elyse Gonzales, Jonathan Shaw, Ian Nelligan, M. Winget, Doris Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":199163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practice management and organization\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practice management and organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practice management and organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.3266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行促进了在初级保健中使用视频就诊。据估计,73%的初级保健就诊可通过视频有效完成。然而,没有研究证明视频就诊对特定主诉的临床有效性。目的:评价视频就诊与面对面就诊对2种常见初级保健主诉的临床疗效。研究设计:回顾性图表回顾。数据集:2019年8月至10月的亲自就诊和2020年8月至10月来自我院门诊急诊诊所(Stanford Express Car e)的视频就诊的手工图表回顾,仅限于2种最常见的主诉(cc):腰痛和头痛。研究人群:在斯坦福快速护理诊所就诊的患有上述cc之一的患者。结果测量:临床医生建议患者首次就诊后急诊或急诊科就诊的频率以及3周内随访的频率用于评估就诊的临床有效性。当临床医生不建议患者在初次就诊后进行紧急办公室或急诊科就诊,并且患者在初次就诊后3周内没有进行亲自随访时,该就诊被认为是临床有效的。在初次患者访问期间,还测量了转诊的频率和诊断成像研究。结果:与面对面就诊相比,腰痛的视频就诊不太可能得到有效评估[74% (37/50)vs 82%(54/66),卡方p=0.3]。在腰痛视频就诊期间,临床医生推荐的患者较少[24% (12/50)vs 36%(24/66),卡方p=0.2],要求的诊断性影像学检查较少[12% (6/50)vs 21%(14/66),卡方p=0.2]。与面对面就诊相比,头痛视频就诊更有可能得到有效评估[86% (43/50)vs 74%(37/50),卡方p=0.1]。在头痛视频就诊期间,临床医生推荐的患者较少[14% (7/50)vs 22%(11/50),(卡方p=0.3)],要求的诊断性影像学检查较少[2% (1/50)vs 18%(9/50),卡方p=0.007]。结论:对于腰痛和头痛,视频就诊的效果并不比面对面就诊的效果差。在头痛视频就诊期间,诊断性影像学检查的数量显著减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical effectiveness of video visits for low back pain and headache in a primary care setting
Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the use of video visits in primary care. It is estimated that 73% of primary care visits can be effectively completed via video. However, there are no studies that demonstrate clinical effectiveness of video visits for specific chief complaints. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of video visits compared to in-person visits for 2 common primary care chief complaints. Study design: Retrospective chart review. Dataset: Manual chart review of in-person visits from August-October 2019 and video visits from August-October 2020 from our institution’s outpatient urgent care clinic (Stanford Express Car e), restricted to 2 of the most common presenting chief complaints (CCs): low back pain and headache. Population studied: Patients who presented to a Stanford Express Care clinic with one of the aforementioned CCs. Outcome measures: Frequency of clinician recommendation for an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and frequency of follow-up visits within a 3-week period were used to assess clinical effectiveness of the visit. A visit is considered clinically effective when a clinician does not recommend an urgent office or ED visit after the initial patient visit and the patient does not have in-person follow-up visits within 3 weeks of the initial visit. Frequency of referrals placed and diagnostic imaging studies ordered during the initial patient visit were also measured. Results: Video visits for low back pain were less likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [74% (37/50) vs 82% (54/66), chi-square p=0.3]. During video visits for low back pain clinicians placed fewer referrals [24% (12/50) vs 36% (24/66), chi-square p=0.2] and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [12% (6/50) vs 21% (14/66), chi-square p=0.2]. Video visits for headache were more likely to be effectively assessed compared to in-person visits [86% (43/50) vs 74% (37/50), chi-square p=0.1]. During video visits for headache, clinicians placed fewer referrals [14% (7/50) vs 22% (11/50), (chi-square p=0.3 ) and ordered fewer diagnostic imaging studies [2% (1/50) vs 18% (9/50), chi-square p=0.007]. Conclusions: For low back pain and headache, video visits were not significantly less likely than in-person visits to be effective. There was a statistically significant decrease in diagnostic imaging studies ordered during video visits for headaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Interprofessional advanced access: results from a quality improvement intervention in primary care teams The combination of atypical diabetes with atypical optic atrophy, avoid missing the diagnosis of wolfram syndrome Quality improvement challenges encountered in primary care for diabetes management in the province of Quebec, Canada Implementing a safer and more reliable system to monitor test results at a teaching primary care facility Integration of Hepatitis C Treatment into Primary Care Practices: A Qualitative Study in Four New England States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1