A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients’ experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up

Patients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, in-person visits could help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxiety linked to their condition and maintain better communication with their doctors than simple remote control of their device status. Therefore, our objective was to analyze the experiences and communication comparing telemonitoring (TM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) of patients with pacemakers. A single-center, controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected five years after implantation in a cohort of 89 consecutive patients assigned to two different groups: TM and CM. The ‘Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire’ (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients’ experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. Additionally, an ad-hoc survey including items from the ‘Telehealth Patient Satisfaction Survey’ and a ‘costs survey’ was used. After five years, 55 patients completed the study (TM = 21; CM = 34). Participants’ mean (±SD) age was 81 (±6.47), and 31% were females. No differences in baseline characteristics between groups were found. The comparative analyses TM versus CM showed some significant differences. According to GS-PEQ, TM users received adequate information about their diagnosis or afflictions (p = .035) and the treatment was better adapted to their situation (p = .009). Both groups reported negative experiences regarding their involvement in their treatment decisions, the waiting time before admission, and perceived a low-benefit. According to HCCQ, the TM group experienced poorer consultation management by the healthcare provider (p = .041). Participants reported positive overall communication experiences. The study provides insights into the experiences and communication in PM monitoring services as well as specific areas where users reported negative experiences such as the consultation management by clinicians. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.

Telemedicine in Hematology: Tool to Improve Access and Patient Satisfaction

Introduction: Telemedicine can transform the future of medicine, especially in rural settings by improving access to medical care. Here were present the patient satisfaction data from both telemedicine and regular visits in our Hematology & Oncology clinics. In Hematology, we have used tele medicine for sickle cell disease, benign hematology cases like iron deficiency, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis etc., and in malignant hematology for new patient consults, toxicity checks, follow up of plasma cell disorders, chronic leukemias and low intensity chemotherapies. Methods: We retrospectively collected patient satisfaction survey data from March 2020 to April 2021 for both telemedicine and regular visits. The patients were allowed to give a score from 1 to 99 regarding their experience at visit. We collected data on the following: likelihood of recommending, care provider, access and overall assessment. Results: A total of 53 patient satisfaction survey were available for telemedicine and 462 for regular visits. Over 60 % of tele visits were non cancer related and 40% were cancer related. The average score for likelihood of recommending, care provider, access, and overall assessment for tele visit were 73.5, 41.5, 73.5 and 62 respectively. The average score for likelihood of recommending, care provider, access, and overall assessment for regular visit were 13.75, 7.5, 26.5, and 11 respectively. Conclusion: The patient satisfaction scores for likelihood of recommending, care provider, access and overall assessment were significantly better for tele visits compared to regular visits. Disclosures Master: Blue Bird Bio: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company.

605. Rates of Patient Satisfaction with Home-Based Outpatient Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT)

Background The use of home-based outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is well established. Studies by the National Home Infusion Foundation (NHIF) show that 1.4 million patients receive OPAT each year.1 With patient satisfaction a priority, NHIF developed, validated, and reliability tested the Uniform Patient Satisfaction Survey for Home Infusion Providers in 2017.2 Medicare patients are the fasting growing segment in the US and account for a disproportionate share of health care usage. Determining older patient satisfaction is imperative because patients who are more satisfied are more compliant with treatment3 and tend to return for continued care.4 Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine the level of home-based OPAT patient satisfaction and if a significant difference (p = ≤ .05) exists between the 0-64 and 65+ age groups. Methods 2019 and 2020 OPAT survey data (n=5,559) was used in this study. Top box percent, typically used in health care patient satisfaction, was calculated for each survey question. Data was summarized using 7 composite categories formed from the 22 survey questions. Differences (p = ≤ .05) between the age groups was also calculated. Results Mean patient age was 64.31 (SD=14.78), 54.99% were 65+ years old, and 58.85% were male. OPAT patients gave high marks to their home infusion service (Table 1). The highest top box % for the composite scores was “Patient instructions” which averaged 98.91%. The most common healthcare satisfaction question “I was satisfied with the overall quality of the services provided” showed significant difference between the age groups (p = .002) with the 0-64 groups being more satisfied than the 65+ (Exhibit 1). Table 1. OPAT Patient Satisfaction Survey Composite Scores: Percent of Patients Selecting Top-Box Score (n= 5,559) Exhibit 1. Level (%) of Agreement to “I was satisfied with the overall quality of the services provided” by Age Group (n = 5,559) Conclusion Analysis of each survey question shows the 65+ patients are less satisfied than younger patients on the following: being informed of side effects, explanation of financial responsibilities, and the helpfulness of the billing staff. Even though the scores are high for both age groups, additional research needs to be conducted to determine why scores for the 65+ age group are lower, and changes needed for improvement. Knowing the level of OPAT patient satisfaction will benefit infectious disease physicians, providers, prescribers, payers, and regulators as they evaluate how to expand home-based services. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

A patient satisfaction survey and educational package to improve the care of people hospitalised with COVID-19: a quality improvement project, Liverpool, UK

Background: The perspectives and experiences of people hospitalised with COVID-19 have been under-reported during the coronavirus pandemic. We developed and conducted a COVID-19 patient satisfaction survey in a large university-affiliated secondary healthcare centre in Liverpool, UK, during Europe’s first coronavirus wave (April-June 2020). The survey found that care was rated highly, including among people of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background. However, sleep-quality and communication about medications and discharge-planning were identified as areas for improvement. Methods: To improve care for people with COVID-19 admitted to our centre, we designed an educational package for healthcare professionals working on COVID-19 wards. The package, implemented in August 2020, included healthcare worker training sessions on providing holistic care and placement of “Practice Pointers” posters. Patient satisfaction was re-evaluated during the second/third COVID-19 waves in Liverpool (September 2020 - February 2021). Results: Across waves, most (95%) respondents reported that they would recommend our hospital to friends and/or family and rated overall care highly. Comparison of the responses of second/third-wave respondents (n=101) with first-wave respondents (n=94) suggested improved patient satisfaction across most care domains but especially those related to having worries and fears addressed and being consulted about medications and their side-effects. Conclusions: People admitted with COVID-19 to our centre in Liverpool, including those from BAME background, rated the care they received highly. A simple education package improved the feedback on care received by respondents between the first and second/third waves. These UK-first findings are informing regional strategies to improve person-centred care of hospitalised people with COVID-19.