Noel Oizerovici Foni, Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi, Renata Farias Vidigal Correia, Flavio Tocci Moreira, Karine De Amicis Lima, Renata Albaladejo Morbeck, Jose Leão de Souza, Carlos Henrique Sartorato Pedrotti, Nelson Wolosker
{"title":"全科医生对骨科低风险疾病进行基于指南的远程医疗评估并不比急诊科专家面对面会诊差:一项随机试验。","authors":"Noel Oizerovici Foni, Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi, Renata Farias Vidigal Correia, Flavio Tocci Moreira, Karine De Amicis Lima, Renata Albaladejo Morbeck, Jose Leão de Souza, Carlos Henrique Sartorato Pedrotti, Nelson Wolosker","doi":"10.1089/tmj.2024.0312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> There is a lack of randomized controlled trials focusing on orthopedic telemedicine (TM). The objective of this research was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and pattern of TM consultations of low-risk orthopedic patients performed by general practitioners (GPs) with those of face-to-face evaluations by orthopedists at an emergency department (ED). <b>Methods:</b> This randomized, single-center study was conducted between October 2021 and November 2022 on patients at an ED. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, low back pain, extremity contusion, ankle sprain, or neck pain. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 for TM consultations by generalist physicians with subsequent face-to-face orthopedic evaluations (TM-ED group) or face-to-face evaluations by orthopedic physicians (ED group). Primary outcomes were syndromic diagnosis, physical examination, and tests ordered. Secondary analysis included a satisfaction survey. <b>Results:</b> A total of 99 patients were enrolled; mean age was 41 ± 10.1 years, and 62.6% were female. The most common conditions were foot contusion (28.3%), ankle sprain (27.3%), hand contusion (19.2%), low back pain (19.2%), and neck pain (6.1%). Syndromic diagnosis showed no difference between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.231). In the TM-ED group (<i>n</i> = 51), self-examination demonstrated moderate to good agreement with face-to-face evaluations in several areas. Both groups showed similar tests practices. Patient satisfaction was higher in the TM-ED group across multiple measures. <b>Conclusion:</b> TM consultations for low-risk orthopedic patients by GPs are not inferior to face-to-face specialist evaluations at the ED. Virtual assessments are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04981002.</p>","PeriodicalId":54434,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine and e-Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guideline-Based Telemedicine Assessment of Orthopedic Low-Risk Conditions by General Practitioners is Not Inferior to that of Face-to-Face Consultations with Specialists in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Noel Oizerovici Foni, Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi, Renata Farias Vidigal Correia, Flavio Tocci Moreira, Karine De Amicis Lima, Renata Albaladejo Morbeck, Jose Leão de Souza, Carlos Henrique Sartorato Pedrotti, Nelson Wolosker\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/tmj.2024.0312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> There is a lack of randomized controlled trials focusing on orthopedic telemedicine (TM). The objective of this research was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and pattern of TM consultations of low-risk orthopedic patients performed by general practitioners (GPs) with those of face-to-face evaluations by orthopedists at an emergency department (ED). <b>Methods:</b> This randomized, single-center study was conducted between October 2021 and November 2022 on patients at an ED. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, low back pain, extremity contusion, ankle sprain, or neck pain. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 for TM consultations by generalist physicians with subsequent face-to-face orthopedic evaluations (TM-ED group) or face-to-face evaluations by orthopedic physicians (ED group). Primary outcomes were syndromic diagnosis, physical examination, and tests ordered. Secondary analysis included a satisfaction survey. <b>Results:</b> A total of 99 patients were enrolled; mean age was 41 ± 10.1 years, and 62.6% were female. The most common conditions were foot contusion (28.3%), ankle sprain (27.3%), hand contusion (19.2%), low back pain (19.2%), and neck pain (6.1%). Syndromic diagnosis showed no difference between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.231). In the TM-ED group (<i>n</i> = 51), self-examination demonstrated moderate to good agreement with face-to-face evaluations in several areas. Both groups showed similar tests practices. Patient satisfaction was higher in the TM-ED group across multiple measures. <b>Conclusion:</b> TM consultations for low-risk orthopedic patients by GPs are not inferior to face-to-face specialist evaluations at the ED. Virtual assessments are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04981002.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Telemedicine and e-Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Telemedicine and e-Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2024.0312\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine and e-Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2024.0312","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Guideline-Based Telemedicine Assessment of Orthopedic Low-Risk Conditions by General Practitioners is Not Inferior to that of Face-to-Face Consultations with Specialists in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Trial.
Background: There is a lack of randomized controlled trials focusing on orthopedic telemedicine (TM). The objective of this research was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and pattern of TM consultations of low-risk orthopedic patients performed by general practitioners (GPs) with those of face-to-face evaluations by orthopedists at an emergency department (ED). Methods: This randomized, single-center study was conducted between October 2021 and November 2022 on patients at an ED. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, low back pain, extremity contusion, ankle sprain, or neck pain. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 for TM consultations by generalist physicians with subsequent face-to-face orthopedic evaluations (TM-ED group) or face-to-face evaluations by orthopedic physicians (ED group). Primary outcomes were syndromic diagnosis, physical examination, and tests ordered. Secondary analysis included a satisfaction survey. Results: A total of 99 patients were enrolled; mean age was 41 ± 10.1 years, and 62.6% were female. The most common conditions were foot contusion (28.3%), ankle sprain (27.3%), hand contusion (19.2%), low back pain (19.2%), and neck pain (6.1%). Syndromic diagnosis showed no difference between groups (p = 0.231). In the TM-ED group (n = 51), self-examination demonstrated moderate to good agreement with face-to-face evaluations in several areas. Both groups showed similar tests practices. Patient satisfaction was higher in the TM-ED group across multiple measures. Conclusion: TM consultations for low-risk orthopedic patients by GPs are not inferior to face-to-face specialist evaluations at the ED. Virtual assessments are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04981002.
期刊介绍:
Telemedicine and e-Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal for cutting-edge telemedicine applications for achieving optimal patient care and outcomes. It places special emphasis on the impact of telemedicine on the quality, cost effectiveness, and access to healthcare. Telemedicine applications play an increasingly important role in health care. They offer indispensable tools for home healthcare, remote patient monitoring, and disease management, not only for rural health and battlefield care, but also for nursing home, assisted living facilities, and maritime and aviation settings.
Telemedicine and e-Health offers timely coverage of the advances in technology that offer practitioners, medical centers, and hospitals new and innovative options for managing patient care, electronic records, and medical billing.