S'abonner

Satisfaction and feasibility of videoconsultation (VC) in orthopaedic and trauma surgery in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Prospective study of 783 patients - 01/02/23

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103345 
Alexis Perrin a, , Nicolas Mainard b, c, Marc Limousin d, Eric Meyer d, Franck Remy d, Guillaume Strouk d, Laurène Norberciak e, f, Pierre-Emmanuel Ridon d
a Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, hôpital Saint Philibert, rue du Grand But, 59160 Lille, France 
b Service de chirurgie infantile, CHU Lille, hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, avenue Eugène Avinée, 59000 Lille, France 
c Université Lille-Hauts de France, 59000 Lille, France 
d Centre de chirurgie orthopédique, clinique de Saint-Omer, 71, rue Ambroise Paré, 62575 Blendecques, France 
e Délégation à la recherche clinique et à l’innovation, unité de biostatistiques, groupement des hôpitaux de l’institut catholique de Lille, 59160 Lille, France 
f Université catholique de Lille, 60, boulevard Vauban, 59800 Lille, France 

Corresponding author.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has required that specialists use videoconsultation (VC) to maintain continuity of care. As in-person consultations (IPCs) and surgical procedures were cancelled, VC became the tool of choice. No recent French study has assessed VC as the main consultation modality. The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate: 1) patient satisfaction, 2) access to and the future of VC, 3) and the reasons for VC refusal in the setting of the pandemic.

Hypothesis

Patients responded favourably to VC.

Patients and method

We conducted a prospective, single-centre, observational study of consecutive patients who were invited to switch from IPC to VC during the lockdown of March 16 to May 11, 2020, when IPCs were not available. All patients were included in the study, regardless of whether they accepted the VC. The reasons for refusal were recorded at the time of the invitation. The surgeons sent the patients who accepted an emailed satisfaction questionnaire after the VC.

Results

Of the 783 patients with scheduled IPCs, 291 (37.2%) accepted a VC instead, 408 (52.1%) refused the VC, and 84 (10.7%) could not be contacted by telephone and were therefore excluded. The VC acceptance rate was 37% (291/783). Of the 291 VC patients, 233 (80.1%) returned the satisfaction questionnaire, although 2 questionnaires had too many missing data to be included, leaving 231 patients for the analysis. The VC was the first consultation with the surgeon for 66 (28.6%) patients. Of the 165 (71.4%) other patients, 51.6% (85/165) were receiving post-operative follow-up. On a 0-5 scale, the global VC experience was scored 4.3±0.8. Of the 231 VC patients, 161 (69.7%) felt that the VC was equivalent to an IPC, 18 (7.8%) that it was poorer, and 7 (3%) that it was better than an IPC; 45 (19.5%) had no opinion on this point. If choosing between a VC or an IPC had been possible during this first lockdown, 168/231 (72.7%) patients would have chosen an IPC. In contrast, 198/231 (85.7%) patients said they would choose an IPC after the lockdown. The group that refused the VC had a significantly older mean age (57.8±16.4 years vs. 48.0±14.4 years, p<0.0001) and lived closer to the institution (p<0.0001), whereas the sex distribution was comparable, with 42.9% of males (175/408) refusing and 46.8% (108/231) accepting the VC (p=0.39). The main reason for refusal was a wish for an in-person encounter with the surgeon (268/408, 65.7%). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to refuse due to technical considerations (access to electronic equipment and to the Internet), whereas patients ≤35 years were more likely to wait for an IPC.

Conclusion

The rate of satisfaction with the VC was high. Satisfaction was not significantly associated with the reason for the consultation (joint involved, degenerative or post-traumatic condition, first VC, first consultation, or follow-up before or after surgery). Although most patients who accepted the VC felt that this modality was equivalent to an IPC, many remained desirous of an in-person encounter with the surgeon, notably among the youngest individuals. Outside the setting of a pandemic, the IPC remains the consultation modality of choice for most of our patients.

Level of evidence

V, prospective study without a control group.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Surgery, Orthopaedics, Video, Telemedicine, Teleconsultation, COVID-19, Satisfaction


Plan


© 2022  Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 109 - N° 1

Article 103345- février 2023 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Evaluation of a smartphone application for self-rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during a COVID-19 lockdown
  • Paul-Henri Bauwens, Jean-Marie Fayard, Maxime Tatar, Hichem Abid, Benjamin Freychet, Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet, Mathieu Thaunat
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Will videoteleconsultation have been just a stopgap in French orthopedics–traumatology? A national survey of 280 surgeons
  • Pierre-Jean Lambrey, Nicolas Mainard, Sahara Graf, Boni Armand Elegbe, Alexis Perrin

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.