Patient Satisfaction for Telehealth Physical Therapy Services Was Comparable to that of In-Person Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Patient Satisfaction for Telehealth Physical Therapy Services Was Comparable to that of In-Person Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11420-020-09800-5
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gallegro J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eannucci EF;Hazel K;Grundstein MJ;Nguyen JT;Gallegro J
COVID-19 大流行改变了物理治疗 (PT) 的实践，从基于面对面治疗的模式转变为包括远程医疗的模式。然而，需要进行研究来评估远程医疗 PT 的价值、患者满意度和临床结果。我们试图比较患者对现场和远程医疗 PT 的满意度，并确定影响患者满意度评分的因素，例如年龄、性别或保险支付人。我们向在我们机构接受门诊 PT 的年龄在 18 岁至 90 岁之间的患者发送短信进行患者满意度调查。我们向2020年1月1日至5月8日接受现场PT的患者以及2020年4月21日至5月8日接受远程医疗PT的患者发送了调查。还收集了患者的年龄、性别、保险支付者和书面意见。 Kruskal-Wallis 检验用于比较各组之间的调查得分。 χ2 检验用于比较组间患者的分类特征。总共发出了 12,345 份调查。我们在分析中纳入了来自 1147 名患者的完整调查。其中，33% 为男性，67% 为女性，平均年龄为 60.3 岁，58% 拥有商业保险，36% 拥有医疗保险，3% 拥有医疗补助，2% 拥有无过失/工人赔偿，1% 拥有国际保险。 1074 名患者回答了满意度问题。 在年龄或性别组中，满意度没有统计学差异。满意度因保险类型而异，但当分析排除国际保险的患者时，组间没有差异。现场 PT 患者报告在实现治疗目标方面的满意度更高（按照 1 到 5 级评分 (4.7±0.6)）高于远程医疗 PT 患者 (4.6±0.6)，尽管尚不清楚这一结果是否具有临床意义。其余后续问题无显着差异。我们发现接受现场 PT 的患者和接受远程医疗 PT 的患者满意度没有总体差异。对于初次就诊和后续就诊来说都是如此，但有两个类别除外：“安排预约的能力”和“实现治疗目标的进展”。然而，这两种例外的临床意义值得怀疑。正在进行的研究旨在评估远程医疗 PT 的功效，同时确定非危机时期使用的最佳患者和条件。未来的研究应确定远程医疗 PT 对患者报告的结果测量、功能和价值的影响。本文的在线版本 (10.1007/s11420-020-09800-5) 包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the practice of physical therapy (PT), from a model based on in-person delivery to one that includes telehealth. However, research is needed to assess value, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes in the delivery of telehealth PT. We sought to compare patient satisfaction with in-person and telehealth PT and to determine the factors—such as age, gender, or insurance payer—that contributed to patient satisfaction scores. Patients between the ages of 18 and 90 years who received outpatient PT at our institution were texted a patient satisfaction survey. Surveys were sent to patients who received in-person PT from January 1 to May 8, 2020, and to patients who received telehealth PT from April 21 to May 8, 2020. Patients’ age, gender, insurance payer, and written comments were also collected. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare survey scores between groups. χ-squared tests were used to compare categorical patient characteristics between groups. In total, 12,345 surveys were sent out. We included completed surveys from 1147 patients in the analysis. Of these, 33% identified as male and 67% as female, mean age was 60.3 years, 58% had commercial insurance, 36% had Medicare, 3% had Medicaid, 2% had no-fault/worker’s compensation, and 1% had international insurance. The question of satisfaction was answered by 1074 patients. No statistical difference in satisfaction was seen in age or gender groups. Satisfaction differed by insurance type, but when analysis excluded patients with international insurance, there was no difference between groups. In-person PT patients reported higher satisfaction in achieving treatment goals, as rated on a 1-to-5 scale (4.7 ± 0.6), than telehealth PT patients (4.6 ± 0.6), although it is unclear if this result is clinically meaningful. There was no significant difference in the remaining follow-up questions. We found no overall difference in patient satisfaction between those receiving in-person PT and those receiving telehealth PT. This was true for initial and follow-up visits, with the exception of two categories: the “ability of scheduling an appointment” and “progress towards attaining your treatment goals.” However, the clinical significance of these two exceptions is questionable. Ongoing research is indicated to evaluate the efficacy of telehealth PT while identifying the best patients and conditions for use during non-crisis times. Future studies should determine the effect of telehealth PT on patient-reported outcome measures, function, and value. The online version of this article (10.1007/s11420-020-09800-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1093/jamia/ocaa072
发表时间：
2020-07-01
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Mann, Devin M.;Chen, Ji;Nov, Oded
通讯作者：
Nov, Oded
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Kruse CS;Krowski N;Rodriguez B;Tran L;Vela J;Brooks M
通讯作者：
Brooks M
DOI：
10.1093/jamia/ocaa067
发表时间：
2020-06-01
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Wosik, Jedrek;Fudim, Marat;Tcheng, James
通讯作者：
Tcheng, James
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Fisher, Charles;Biehl, Elizabeth;Gantha, Chandra Sekhar
通讯作者：
Gantha, Chandra Sekhar
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Moffet, Helene;Tousignant, Michel;Dimentberg, Ronald
通讯作者：
Dimentberg, Ronald