The virtual ear, nose and throat follow-up clinic: a 10-year quality improvement project

Background/Aims Ear, nose and throat services have seen one of the greatest increases in service demand over the last 6 years. This study aimed to determine if a virtual clinic system could reduce the volume of patients who need to be seen in person in an ear, nose and throat outpatient clinic. Methods Clinical outcome data for one consultant's team in a single ear, nose and throat department between 2009–19 were analysed. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who used the virtual clinic in this 10-year period and the outcomes analysed. Results A total of 3071 patients entered the virtual clinic during the 10-year period. Of these, 61% were discharged from the clinic via virtual follow-up and 39% required an in-person review appointment. On average, 187 patients per year did not have to attend an in-person follow-up appointment, with estimated cost savings of £27 000 per year. Conclusions The virtual ear, nose and throat clinic service has clear benefits for patients and services, delivering healthcare without unnecessary in-person appointments through a shared, clinician–patient decision process.

Going Online!

The use of technology in healthcare became a prevailing necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sanitary services oriented in mental health broadened their way of interaction due to the increase in the need for these services. Healthcare professionals had to develop different learning skills and adapt their abilities to the virtual clinical practice through a digital interface, where communication represented the biggest challenge. The objective of the study was to identify the different adjustments, especially in the communication skills, made by those who provide psychological services by the Virtual Clinic in Psychology and others and clinical psychologists. The authors considered adequate qualitative methodology for the study with an exploratory, descriptive design. The data gathering tool was a semi-structured interview and the word analysis method. The participants are professors that provide psychological care in the Virtual Clinic in Psychology of a nonprofit institution of higher education in Mexico and professionals providing mental health attention.

Early Implementation and Evaluation of a Teledermatology Virtual Clinic Within an Academic Medical Center

Background Teledermatology can increase patient access; however, its optimal implementation remains unknown. Objective This study aimed to describe and evaluate the implementation of a pilot virtual clinic teledermatology service at Duke University. Methods Leaders at Duke Dermatology and Duke Primary Care identified a teledermatology virtual clinic to meet patients’ access needs. Implementation was planned over the exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment phases. We evaluated the implementation success of teledermatology using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework and prioritized outcome collection through a stakeholder survey. We used the electronic health record and patient surveys to capture implementation outcomes. Results Our process consisted of primary care providers (PCPs) who sent clinical and dermatoscopic images of patient lesions or rashes via e-communication to a teledermatology virtual clinic, with a subsequent virtual clinic scheduling of a video visit with the virtual clinic providers (residents or advanced practice providers, supervised by Duke Dermatology attending physicians) within 2-5 days. The teledermatology team reviews the patient images on the day of the video visit and gives their diagnosis and management plan with either no follow-up, teledermatology nurse follow-up, or in-person follow-up evaluation. Implementation at 4 pilot clinics, involving 19 referring PCPs and 5 attending dermatologists, began on September 9, 2021. As of October 31, 2021, a total of 68 e-communications were placed (50 lesions and 18 rashes) and 64 virtual clinic video visits were completed. There were 3 patient refusals and 1 conversion to a telephonic visit. Participating primary care clinics differed in the number of patients referred with completed visits (range 2-32) and the percentage of providers using e-communications (range 13%-53%). Patients were seen soon after e-communication placement; compared to in-person wait times of >3 months, the teledermatology virtual clinic video visits occurred on average 2.75 days after e-communication. In total, 20% of virtual clinic video visits were seen as in-person visit follow-up, which suggests that the majority of patients were deemed treatable at the virtual clinic. All patients who returned the patient survey (N=10, 100%) agreed that their clinical goals were met during the virtual clinic video visits. Conclusions Our virtual clinic model for teledermatology implementation resulted in timely access for patients, while minimizing loss to follow-up, and has promising patient satisfaction outcomes. However, participating primary care clinics differ in their volume of referrals to the virtual clinic. As the teledermatology virtual clinics scale to other clinic sites, a systematic assessment of barriers and facilitators to its implementation may explain these interclinic differences. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Private Diagnostic Clinic and Duke Institute for Health Innovation for their support. Conflicts of Interest None declared.

Early Implementation and Evaluation of a Teledermatology Virtual Clinic Within an Academic Medical Center (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Teledermatology can increase patient access; however, its optimal implementation remains unknown. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to describe and evaluate the implementation of a pilot virtual clinic teledermatology service at Duke University. METHODS Leaders at Duke Dermatology and Duke Primary Care identified a teledermatology virtual clinic to meet patients’ access needs. Implementation was planned over the exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment phases. We evaluated the implementation success of teledermatology using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework and prioritized outcome collection through a stakeholder survey. We used the electronic health record and patient surveys to capture implementation outcomes. RESULTS Our process consisted of primary care providers (PCPs) who sent clinical and dermatoscopic images of patient lesions or rashes via e-communication to a teledermatology virtual clinic, with a subsequent virtual clinic scheduling of a video visit with the virtual clinic providers (residents or advanced practice providers, supervised by Duke Dermatology attending physicians) within 2-5 days. The teledermatology team reviews the patient images on the day of the video visit and gives their diagnosis and management plan with either no follow-up, teledermatology nurse follow-up, or in-person follow-up evaluation. Implementation at 4 pilot clinics, involving 19 referring PCPs and 5 attending dermatologists, began on September 9, 2021. As of October 31, 2021, a total of 68 e-communications were placed (50 lesions and 18 rashes) and 64 virtual clinic video visits were completed. There were 3 patient refusals and 1 conversion to a telephonic visit. Participating primary care clinics differed in the number of patients referred with completed visits (range 2-32) and the percentage of providers using e-communications (range 13%-53%). Patients were seen soon after e-communication placement; compared to in-person wait times of >3 months, the teledermatology virtual clinic video visits occurred on average 2.75 days after e-communication. In total, 20% of virtual clinic video visits were seen as in-person visit follow-up, which suggests that the majority of patients were deemed treatable at the virtual clinic. All patients who returned the patient survey (N=10, 100%) agreed that their clinical goals were met during the virtual clinic video visits. CONCLUSIONS Our virtual clinic model for teledermatology implementation resulted in timely access for patients, while minimizing loss to follow-up, and has promising patient satisfaction outcomes. However, participating primary care clinics differ in their volume of referrals to the virtual clinic. As the teledermatology virtual clinics scale to other clinic sites, a systematic assessment of barriers and facilitators to its implementation may explain these interclinic differences.

P-BN22 The use of virtual clinics in gallbladder polyp surveillance

Background Gallbladder polyps are common findings on ultrasound with a prevalence between 0.3-9.5%. Their significance is not clear but are theorised to have potential risk of transformation into gallbladder malignancy which have poor prognosis if not caught early. Current guidelines recommend surveillance of polyps and that laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be offered if certain criteria are met. Most patients are asymptomatic and regular reviews in clinic is time consuming for patients and adds to strain on services. This study looks at the use of virtual clinics in gallbladder polyp surveillance. Methods Since January 2019 patients identified with gallbladder polyps have been added to virtual clinic. Each patient is added to a database which is maintained by one upper GI surgeon. Current guidelines are followed: laparoscopic cholecystectomy is offered if polyps are greater than 1cm, there is an increase greater than 2mm between scans, and in high-risk groups or in symptomatic patients. All other patients are offered interval scans as per guidelines and a template letter is generated informing patients of their scan results and date of their follow up scan. Results Since January 2019, 70 patients have been identified to have gallbladder polyps. Of these 48 patients so far have benefitted from involvement from follow up in virtual clinic to date, this has resulted in 88 clinic appointments being saved. 12 patients have undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to increase in size of their gallbladder polyps or secondary to symptoms. 7 patients have been lost to follow up, 2 discharged due to the gallbladder polyps disappearing and the other 49 remain under surveillance in the virtual clinic. Conclusions Long term polyp surveillance can be time consuming for both the patient and clinician. This model of a virtual clinic maintains clear communication with patients about their scan findings, the risks associated and plans for future scans. This is an efficient method of monitoring these patients that has good compliance and identifies patients appropriate for surgery.