Video consultation during follow up care: effect on quality of care and patient- and provider attitude in patients with colorectal cancer

Esther Z Barsom, Marilou Jansen, Pieter J Tanis, Anthony W H van de Ven, Marjolein Blussé van Oud-Alblas, Christianne J Buskens, Willem A Bemelman, Marlies P Schijven, Esther Z Barsom, Marilou Jansen, Pieter J Tanis, Anthony W H van de Ven, Marjolein Blussé van Oud-Alblas, Christianne J Buskens, Willem A Bemelman, Marlies P Schijven

Abstract

Background: Video consultation (VC) is gaining attention as a possible alternative to out-patient clinic visits. However, little is known in terms of attitude, satisfaction and quality of care using VC over a face-to-face (F2F) consultation. The aim of this observational survey study was to compare the attitude and satisfaction with VC amongst patients suffering from colorectal cancer and their treating surgeons at the outpatient surgical care clinic in a tertiary referral centre.

Methods: A patient-preference model was chosen following the concept of shared decision making. A total of fifty patients with colorectal cancer were asked to choose between VC- or a F2F-contact during their follow up at the outpatient surgical care clinic and were subsequently assigned to either the VC-group or the F2F-group. Attitude and satisfaction rates of both groups and their surgeons were measured using a questionnaire administered immediately after the consultation.

Results: Out of the 50 patients, 42% chose VC as their preferred follow-up modality. Patients demographics did not differ significantly. Patients who use video calling in their personal life choose VC significantly more often than patients lacking such experience (p = 0.010). These patients scored high on both the attitude- and satisfaction scale of the post-VC questionnaire. Patients who chose a F2F-contact seemed to question the ability of the surgeon to properly assess their healthcare condition by using a video connection more (p = 0.024). Surgeons were highly satisfied with the use of VC.

Conclusions: Based on patient preference, VC is equivalent to a F2F consultation in terms of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care. Shared decision making is preferred with regard to which contact modality is used during follow up. For easy uptake in other environments it is to be recommended to facilitate VC using the electronic patient portal.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Patient preference; Satisfaction; Shared decision making; Surgery; Telemedicine; Video consultation; Virtual visit; eHealth.

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Esther Z. Barsom, Drs. Marilou Jansen, Professor Pieter J. Tanis, Dr. Anthony W.H. van de Ven, Drs. Marjolein Blussé van Oud-Alblas, Dr. Christianne J. Buskens, Professor Willem A. Bemelman and Professor Marlies P. Schijven have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Audio visual connection on a smartphone (patient) and at the workplace (surgeon). Permission of all pictured individuals was obtained
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart of the participants through the study protocol
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results of the PAT-VC questionnaire after the VC or F2F-visit. Answers were provided on a 5-point Likert scale and are presented in percentages. Categories ‘Totally agree’ and ‘Agree’ were pooled as ‘Totally disagree’ and ‘Disagree’
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Results of the Multi Source Feedback Questionnaire completed by patients after the VC or F2F-visit. Answers were provided on a 5-point Likert scale and are presented in percentages. Categories ‘Totally agree’ and ‘Agree’ were pooled as ‘Totally disagree’ and ‘Disagree’

References

    1. Basta YL, Tytgat K, Greuter HH, Klinkenbijl JHG, Fockens P, Strikwerda J. Organizing and implementing a multidisciplinary fast track oncology clinic. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(7):966–971. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx143.
    1. Kobayashi D, Otsubo T, Imanaka Y. The effect of centralization of health care services on travel time and its equality. Health Policy. 2015;119(3):298–306. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.008.
    1. Cain SM, Moore R, Sturm L, Mason T, Fuhrman C, Smith R, et al. Clinical assessment and management of general surgery patients via synchronous telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(2):371–375. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16636245.
    1. Alkmim MB, Figueira RM, Marcolino MS, Cardoso CS, Pena de Abreu M, Cunha LR, et al. Improving patient access to specialized health care: the Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais Brazil. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):373–378. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099408.
    1. Fatehi F, Armfield NR, Dimitrijevic M, Gray LC. Clinical applications of videoconferencing: a scoping review of the literature for the period 2002–2012. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(7):377–383. doi: 10.1177/1357633X14552385.
    1. Rojas SV, Gagnon MP. A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(9):896–904. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0009.
    1. Sabesan S, Larkins S, Evans R, Varma S, Andrews A, Beuttner P, et al. Telemedicine for rural cancer care in North Queensland: bringing cancer care home. Aust J Rural Health. 2012;20(5):259–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2012.01299.x.
    1. Larson JL, Rosen AB, Wilson FA. The effect of telehealth interventions on quality of life of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24(6):397–405. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0112.
    1. Cotrim H, Pereira G. Impact of colorectal cancer on patient and family: implications for care. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(3):217–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2007.11.005.
    1. Mekhjian H, Turner JW, Gailiun M, McCain TA. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in a prison environment. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5(1):55–61. doi: 10.1258/1357633991932397.
    1. Barsom EZ, van Hees E, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP (2020) Measuring patient satisfaction with video consultation: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties (manuscript in preparation)
    1. Brooke J. SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weestmeester BA, McClelland AL, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.
    1. Federatie Medisch Specialisten (2015) MSF-vragenlijst 2019 .
    1. Donnon T, Al Ansari A, Al Alawi S, Violato C. The reliability, validity, and feasibility of multisource feedback physician assessment: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):511–516. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000147.
    1. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usabilities Stud. 2009;4:114–123.
    1. Tates K, Antheunis ML, Kanters S, Nieboer TE, Gerritse MB. The effect of screen-to-screen versus face-to-face consultation on doctor-patient communication: an experimental study with simulated patients. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(12):e421. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8033.
    1. Mant D, Gray A, Pugh S, Campbell H, George S, Fuller A, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(32):1–86. doi: 10.3310/hta21320.
    1. Primrose JN, Mant D. Surveillance for recurrence of colorectal cancer–reply. JAMA. 2014;311(20):2128. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3417.
    1. Brandenbarg D, Berendsen AJ, de Bock GH. Patients' expectations and preferences regarding cancer follow-up care. Maturitas. 2017;105:58–63. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.07.001.
    1. Huibertse LJ, van Eenbergen M, de Rooij BH, Bastiaens MT, Fossion LM, de la Fuente RB, et al. Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: a cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(2):278–287. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1267398.
    1. Paquette S, Lin JC. Outpatient telemedicine program in vascular surgery reduces patient travel time, cost, and environmental pollutant emissions. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;59:167–172. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.01.021.
    1. Berian JR, Cuddy A, Francescatti AB, O'Dwyer L, Nancy You Y, Volk RJ, et al. Correction to: a systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(5):721. doi: 10.1007/s11764-018-0698-4.
    1. Siddika A, Tolia-Shah D, Pearson TE, Richardson NG, Ross AH. Remote surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery: an effective alternative to standard clinic-based follow-up. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17(10):870–875. doi: 10.1111/codi.12970.
    1. Ernstmann N, Wirtz M, Nitzsche A, Gross SE, Ansmann L, Gloede TD, et al. Patients' trust in physician, patient enablement, and health-related quality of life during colon cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ. 2017;32(3):571–579. doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1166-y.
    1. Laila M, Rialle V, Nicolas L, Duguay C, Franco A. Videophones for the delivery of home healthcare in oncology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;136:39–44.
    1. Yip MP, Chang AM, Chan J, MacKenzie AE. Development of the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a preliminary study. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(1):46–50. doi: 10.1258/135763303321159693.
    1. Westra I, Niessen FB. Implementing real-time video consultation in plastic surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2015;39(5):783–790. doi: 10.1007/s00266-015-0526-4.
    1. Barsom EZ, Rauwerdink A, van Dam D, de Haan RJ, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP (2020) Using video consultation in healthcare: a National patient survey exploring perceptions and conditions for receiving medical specialist care at home (manuscript in preparation)

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다