Design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint tele-consultations [ISRCTN54264250]

Paul Wallace, Andrew Haines, Robert Harrison, Julie A Barber, Simon Thompson, Jennifer Roberts, Paul B Jacklin, Leo Lewis, Paul Wainwright, Virtual Outreach Project Group, Paul Wallace, Andrew Haines, Robert Harrison, Julie A Barber, Simon Thompson, Jennifer Roberts, Paul B Jacklin, Leo Lewis, Paul Wainwright, Virtual Outreach Project Group

Abstract

Background: Appropriate information flow is crucial to the care of patients, particularly at the interface between primary and secondary care. Communication problems can result from inadequate organisation and training, There is a major expectation that information and communication technologies may offer solutions, but little reliable evidence. This paper reports the design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT), unparalleled in telemedicine research in either scale or range of outcomes. The study investigated the effectiveness and cost implications in rural and inner-city settings of using videoconferencing to perform joint tele-consultations as an alternative to general practitioner referral to the hospital specialist in the outpatient clinic.

Methods: Joint tele-consultation services were established in both the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust in inner London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals Trust, in Shropshire. All the patients who gave consent to participate were randomised either to joint tele-consultation or to a routine outpatients appointment. The principal outcome measures included the frequency of decision by the specialist to offer a follow-up outpatient appointment, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Questionnaire), wellbeing (SF12) and enablement (PEI), numbers of tests, investigations, procedures and treatments.

Results: A total of 134 general practitioners operating from 29 practices participated in the trial, referring a total of 3170 patients to 20 specialists in ENT medicine, general medicine (including endocrinology, and rheumatology), gastroenterology, orthopaedics, neurology and urology. Of these, 2094 patients consented to participate in the study and were correctly randomised. There was a 91% response rate to the initial assessment questionnaires, and analysis showed equivalence for all key characteristics between the treatment and control groups.

Conclusion: We have designed and performed a major multi-centre trial of teleconsultations in two contrasting centres. Many problems were overcome to enable the trial to be carried out, with a considerable development and learning phase. A lengthier development phase might have enabled us to improve the patient selection criteria, but there is a window of opportunity for these developments, and we believe that our approach was appropriate, allowing the evaluation of the technology before its widespread implementation.

References

    1. Roland M. Roland M, Coulter A, Eds. Hospital Referrals. Oxford Medical Publications, University Press; 1992. Measuring referral rates. pp. 62–75.
    1. Wallace P, Hopkins A. Eds Referral to medical outpatients-different agendas of patients, general practitioners and hospital physicians. London RCP Publications. 1992.
    1. Marshall M. How well do general practitioners and hospital specialists work together? A qualitative study of co-operation and conflict within the medical profession. BJGP. 1998;48:1379–1382.
    1. The European Study of Referrals from Primary to Secondary Care. Occ Paper 56, Royal College of General Practitioners. 1992.
    1. Wilkie P. Hopkins A, Wallace P eds. Referrals to medical outpatients: different agendas of patients, general practitioners and hospital physicians. London RCP Publications; 1992. What does the patient want?
    1. Marsh GN. Are follow-up consultations at medical outpatient departments futile? BMJ. 1982;284:1176–7.
    1. Reeve H, Baxter K, Newton P, et al. Long-term follow-up in outpatient clinics. 1 :the view from general practice. Family Practice. 1997;14:24–28. doi: 10.1093/fampra/14.1.24.
    1. Grace JF, Armstrong D. Reasons for referral to hospital: extent of agreement between the perceptions of patients, general practitioners and consultants. Family Practice. 1986;3:143–147.
    1. Bailey JJ, Black ME, Wilkin D. Specialist outreach clinics in general practice. BMJ. 1994;308:1083–1086.
    1. Black M, Leese B, Gosden T, Mead N. Specialist outreach clinics in general practice – what do they offer. BJGP. 1997;47:558–561.
    1. Vierhout WPM, Knottnerus JA, van Ooij A, Crebolder HFJM, et al. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Lancet. 1995;346:990–994. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91686-5.
    1. Taylor PA. Two-part Survey of Research in Telemedicine Part Two: Telemedicine Services. 1997.
    1. Mair F, Whitten P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ. 2000;320:1517–1520. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1517.
    1. Harrison R, Clayton W, Wallace P. Can telemedicine be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care? BMJ. 1996;313:1377–81.
    1. Harrison R, Clayton W, Wallace P. Cluster randomised controlled trial of virtual outreach – a pilot study. J Telemed and Telecare. 1999;5:126–130. doi: 10.1258/1357633991933440.
    1. Snowden S, Harrison R, Wallace P. Practitioner participants in a telemedicine trial: comparisons with their peers. J Telemed and Telecare. 2001;7:32–37. doi: 10.1258/1357633011936110.
    1. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, et al. A shorter form health survey :can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1997;19:179–186.
    1. Parkerson GJ. Classification of severity of health problems in family/general practice: an international field trial. Family Practice. 1996;13:303–309.
    1. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1983;6:247–263. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8.
    1. Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as outcome measure of primary care consultations. Family Practice. 1998;15:165–171. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.165.
    1. Vierhout WPM, Knottnerus JA, van Ooij A, Crebolder HFJM, et al. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Lancet. 1995;346:990–994. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91686-5.
    1. Wootton R, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, et al. Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledematology with conventional outpatient dermatological care.: societal cost benefit analysis. BMJ. 2000;320:1252–1256. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1252.
    1. Vierhout WPM, Knottnerus JA, van Ooij A, Crebolder HFJM, et al. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Lancet. 1995;346:990–994. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91686-5.
    1. Bowling A, Bond M. A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings. BJGP. 2001;51:264–270.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere