Cargando…

Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of using a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Bot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Georgina, Brennan, Victoria, Jacques, Richard, Wood, Hilary, Dixon, Simon, Radley, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29346378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189174
_version_ 1783293490348687360
author Jones, Georgina
Brennan, Victoria
Jacques, Richard
Wood, Hilary
Dixon, Simon
Radley, Stephen
author_facet Jones, Georgina
Brennan, Victoria
Jacques, Richard
Wood, Hilary
Dixon, Simon
Radley, Stephen
author_sort Jones, Georgina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of using a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Both groups completed a validated, web-based interactive, patient-reported outome measure (ePAQ-Pelvic Floor), in advance of their appointment followed by either a telephone consultation (Virtual Clinic) or face-to-face consultation (Standard Care). The primary outcome was the mean ‘short-term outcome scale’ score on the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary Outcome Measures included the other domains of the PEQ (Communications, Emotions and Barriers), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), personal, societal and NHS costs. RESULTS: 195 women were randomised: 98 received the intervention and 97 received standard care. The primary outcome showed a non-significant difference between the two study arms. No significant differences were also observed on the CSQ and SF-12. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher PEQ domain scores for Communications, Emotions and Barriers (including following adjustment for age and parity). Whilst standard care was overall more cost-effective, this was minimal (£38.04). The virtual clinic also significantly reduced consultation time (10.94 minutes, compared with a mean duration of 25.9 minutes respectively) and consultation costs compared to usual care (£31.75 versus £72.17 respectively), thus presenting potential cost-savings in out-patient management. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual clinical had no impact on the short-term dimension of the PEQ and overall was not as cost-effective as standard care, due to greater clinic re-attendances in this group. In the virtual clinic group, consultation times were briefer, communication experience was enhanced and personal costs lower. For medical conditions of a sensitive or intimate nature, a virtual clinic has potential to support patients to communicate with health professionals about their condition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5773012
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57730122018-01-26 Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial Jones, Georgina Brennan, Victoria Jacques, Richard Wood, Hilary Dixon, Simon Radley, Stephen PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of using a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Both groups completed a validated, web-based interactive, patient-reported outome measure (ePAQ-Pelvic Floor), in advance of their appointment followed by either a telephone consultation (Virtual Clinic) or face-to-face consultation (Standard Care). The primary outcome was the mean ‘short-term outcome scale’ score on the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary Outcome Measures included the other domains of the PEQ (Communications, Emotions and Barriers), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), personal, societal and NHS costs. RESULTS: 195 women were randomised: 98 received the intervention and 97 received standard care. The primary outcome showed a non-significant difference between the two study arms. No significant differences were also observed on the CSQ and SF-12. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher PEQ domain scores for Communications, Emotions and Barriers (including following adjustment for age and parity). Whilst standard care was overall more cost-effective, this was minimal (£38.04). The virtual clinic also significantly reduced consultation time (10.94 minutes, compared with a mean duration of 25.9 minutes respectively) and consultation costs compared to usual care (£31.75 versus £72.17 respectively), thus presenting potential cost-savings in out-patient management. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual clinical had no impact on the short-term dimension of the PEQ and overall was not as cost-effective as standard care, due to greater clinic re-attendances in this group. In the virtual clinic group, consultation times were briefer, communication experience was enhanced and personal costs lower. For medical conditions of a sensitive or intimate nature, a virtual clinic has potential to support patients to communicate with health professionals about their condition. Public Library of Science 2018-01-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5773012/ /pubmed/29346378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189174 Text en © 2018 Jones et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jones, Georgina
Brennan, Victoria
Jacques, Richard
Wood, Hilary
Dixon, Simon
Radley, Stephen
Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title_full Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title_short Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial
title_sort evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: a randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29346378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189174
work_keys_str_mv AT jonesgeorgina evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT brennanvictoria evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT jacquesrichard evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT woodhilary evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT dixonsimon evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT radleystephen evaluatingtheimpactofavirtualcliniconpatientexperiencepersonalandprovidercostsofcareinurinaryincontinencearandomisedcontrolledtrial