COVID-19大流行期间远程泌尿外科门诊的影响

Y. Abdelmotagly, M. Noureldin, L. Paramore, Raj Kummar, T. Nedas, R. Hindley, A. Emara
{"title":"COVID-19大流行期间远程泌尿外科门诊的影响","authors":"Y. Abdelmotagly, M. Noureldin, L. Paramore, Raj Kummar, T. Nedas, R. Hindley, A. Emara","doi":"10.22374/jeleu.v4i3.117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 had a major impact on NHS services. From the 23rd of March 2020, the Urology Department in Basingstoke initiated telephone-led consultation clinicsinstead of face-to-face outpatient appointments, in accordance with U.K. guidance.Objectives: To evaluate patient experience and satisfaction following the introduction of remote (telephone) consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methods: The first 200 remote patient appointments between the 30th of March 2020 and the 16th of April 2020 were sent a postal questionnaire (19 questions relating to their experience and level of satisfaction with the interaction). Telephone consultations were conducted by 6 consultants, 3 registrars, and 2 specialist nurses. The patients were not prewarned to expect a questionnaire after the remote ap-pointment. The associated cost saving resulting from a switch from face-to-face appointments to remote telephone appointments was also calculated.Results: 100 out of the 200 patients responded within 1 month (response rate 50%). A total of 44% of the patients were new referrals, while 56% were follow-ups. Overall, the feedback was positive regarding the telephone consultation, with 88% rating the care received as excellent or very good. In addition, 90% would recommend a telephone consultation to family and friends. However, 35% would prefer in the future to have another telephone consultation rather than face-to-face consultation, with 46% preferring a face-to-face appointment in the future and 19% unsure. For new patients, the proportion wishing to have a face-to-face appointment, in the end, was unsurprisingly higher than it was for those undergoing a follow-up (39% vs. 7 %). In these 2 weeks, the cost reduction to the NHS from shifting from face-to-face consultation to telephone consultation was estimated to be £6500.Conclusions: Telephone urology clinics are a satisfactory alternative to face-to-face appointments for many of our patients now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. They are efficient, cost-effective, and feasible to undertake urological consultation and can be implemented successfully in selected patients. The feedback from this questionnaire would suggest that priority should be given to face-to-face appointments for new patients and for complex follow-up appointments. Telephone follow-up appointments, however, are a good approach for the majority of patients.","PeriodicalId":136362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Remote Urology Outpatient Clinics during the COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Y. Abdelmotagly, M. Noureldin, L. Paramore, Raj Kummar, T. Nedas, R. Hindley, A. Emara\",\"doi\":\"10.22374/jeleu.v4i3.117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 had a major impact on NHS services. From the 23rd of March 2020, the Urology Department in Basingstoke initiated telephone-led consultation clinicsinstead of face-to-face outpatient appointments, in accordance with U.K. guidance.Objectives: To evaluate patient experience and satisfaction following the introduction of remote (telephone) consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methods: The first 200 remote patient appointments between the 30th of March 2020 and the 16th of April 2020 were sent a postal questionnaire (19 questions relating to their experience and level of satisfaction with the interaction). Telephone consultations were conducted by 6 consultants, 3 registrars, and 2 specialist nurses. The patients were not prewarned to expect a questionnaire after the remote ap-pointment. The associated cost saving resulting from a switch from face-to-face appointments to remote telephone appointments was also calculated.Results: 100 out of the 200 patients responded within 1 month (response rate 50%). A total of 44% of the patients were new referrals, while 56% were follow-ups. Overall, the feedback was positive regarding the telephone consultation, with 88% rating the care received as excellent or very good. In addition, 90% would recommend a telephone consultation to family and friends. However, 35% would prefer in the future to have another telephone consultation rather than face-to-face consultation, with 46% preferring a face-to-face appointment in the future and 19% unsure. For new patients, the proportion wishing to have a face-to-face appointment, in the end, was unsurprisingly higher than it was for those undergoing a follow-up (39% vs. 7 %). In these 2 weeks, the cost reduction to the NHS from shifting from face-to-face consultation to telephone consultation was estimated to be £6500.Conclusions: Telephone urology clinics are a satisfactory alternative to face-to-face appointments for many of our patients now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. They are efficient, cost-effective, and feasible to undertake urological consultation and can be implemented successfully in selected patients. The feedback from this questionnaire would suggest that priority should be given to face-to-face appointments for new patients and for complex follow-up appointments. Telephone follow-up appointments, however, are a good approach for the majority of patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":136362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22374/jeleu.v4i3.117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22374/jeleu.v4i3.117","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

2020年冠状病毒(COVID-19)大流行对NHS服务产生了重大影响。根据英国指导意见,从2020年3月23日起,贝辛斯托克市泌尿外科启动了电话咨询诊所,而不是面对面的门诊预约。目的:评估COVID-19大流行期间引入远程(电话)会诊后的患者体验和满意度。患者和方法:2020年3月30日至2020年4月16日期间的前200名远程预约患者通过邮寄方式发送了一份问卷(包含19个问题,涉及他们的体验和对互动的满意度)。6名咨询师、3名登记员和2名专科护士进行了电话咨询。在远程预约后,患者并没有预先被告知会有问卷调查。还计算了从面对面预约改为远程电话预约所节省的有关费用。结果:200例患者中有100例在1个月内缓解(有效率50%)。44%的患者为新转诊患者,56%为随访患者。总的来说,电话咨询的反馈是积极的,88%的人认为收到的护理是优秀或非常好。此外,90%的人建议向家人和朋友进行电话咨询。然而,35%的人希望在未来进行另一次电话咨询,而不是面对面的咨询,46%的人希望在未来进行面对面的预约,19%的人不确定。对于新患者来说,最终希望面对面预约的比例比接受随访的患者高(39%对7%),这并不令人意外。在这两周内,NHS从面对面咨询转向电话咨询的成本减少估计为6500英镑。结论:电话泌尿科诊所是目前和COVID-19大流行之后许多患者面对面预约的令人满意的替代方案。他们是有效的,具有成本效益,可行的进行泌尿科会诊,并能成功地实施在选定的患者。这份问卷的反馈表明,应该优先考虑新患者的面对面预约和复杂的随访预约。然而,电话随访预约对大多数患者来说是一种很好的方法。
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
The Impact of Remote Urology Outpatient Clinics during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 had a major impact on NHS services. From the 23rd of March 2020, the Urology Department in Basingstoke initiated telephone-led consultation clinicsinstead of face-to-face outpatient appointments, in accordance with U.K. guidance.Objectives: To evaluate patient experience and satisfaction following the introduction of remote (telephone) consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methods: The first 200 remote patient appointments between the 30th of March 2020 and the 16th of April 2020 were sent a postal questionnaire (19 questions relating to their experience and level of satisfaction with the interaction). Telephone consultations were conducted by 6 consultants, 3 registrars, and 2 specialist nurses. The patients were not prewarned to expect a questionnaire after the remote ap-pointment. The associated cost saving resulting from a switch from face-to-face appointments to remote telephone appointments was also calculated.Results: 100 out of the 200 patients responded within 1 month (response rate 50%). A total of 44% of the patients were new referrals, while 56% were follow-ups. Overall, the feedback was positive regarding the telephone consultation, with 88% rating the care received as excellent or very good. In addition, 90% would recommend a telephone consultation to family and friends. However, 35% would prefer in the future to have another telephone consultation rather than face-to-face consultation, with 46% preferring a face-to-face appointment in the future and 19% unsure. For new patients, the proportion wishing to have a face-to-face appointment, in the end, was unsurprisingly higher than it was for those undergoing a follow-up (39% vs. 7 %). In these 2 weeks, the cost reduction to the NHS from shifting from face-to-face consultation to telephone consultation was estimated to be £6500.Conclusions: Telephone urology clinics are a satisfactory alternative to face-to-face appointments for many of our patients now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. They are efficient, cost-effective, and feasible to undertake urological consultation and can be implemented successfully in selected patients. The feedback from this questionnaire would suggest that priority should be given to face-to-face appointments for new patients and for complex follow-up appointments. Telephone follow-up appointments, however, are a good approach for the majority of patients.
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
Inverted Y Ureteral Duplication with Distal Obstructing Calculi in the Ectopic Ureter in the Prostatic Urethra Post-operative Events with Post-operative Day One Stent Removal after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Teflon Injections (STING) Mimicking Distal Ureteric Stones Proceedings of the Welsh Urological Society Annual Meeting The Role of the ClearPetra Suction Access Sheath and UROFINO Disposable Ureteroscope as an Alternative to PCNL/Conventional Flexible Ureteroscopy for a Large Renal Pelvis Stone
×
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