You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 1
  • Comparing video consultation and telephone consultation at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral centre: patient and provider benefits

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Health technology assessment
Original research
Comparing video consultation and telephone consultation at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral centre: patient and provider benefits
  1. Esther Z Barsom1,
  2. Anne Sophie H M van Dalen1,
  3. Marjolein Blussé van Oud-Alblas2,
  4. Christianne J Buskens2,
  5. Anthony W H van de Ven2,
  6. Pieter J Tanis2,
  7. Marlies P Schijven2,
  8. Willem A Bemelman2
  1. 1 Department of Surgery, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC - Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Professor Dr Marlies P Schijven, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC - Locatie AMC, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, North Holland, The Netherlands; m.p.schijven{at}amsterdamumc.nl

Abstract

Objectives Telephone consultations are frequently used in the outpatient setting in order to avoid unnecessary travel and to reduce hospital visit-related costs for patients. However, they are limited by the absence of non-verbal communication in contrast to video consultation. Little is known considering the possible advantages of using video consultation in comparison to telephone consultation according to both patients and healthcare providers.

Methods Patients with colorectal diseases were asked to choose between a telephone consultation or a video consultation for their next appointment at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral centre. Willingness to use video consultation, value of non-verbal communication, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction and user friendliness of the video connection technology were measured using questionnaires.

Results None of the included patients ever had a video consultation before with a healthcare provider. Nonetheless, 22/50 preferred a video consultation over a telephone consultation. Patients who preferred a video consultation underlined the benefits of providing visual feedback to both patients and healthcare providers. Moreover, healthcare providers felt they were better able to assess the patients’ healthcare condition.

Conclusion For patients who value both verbal and non-verbal interaction and feel comfortable with the use of video consultation, video consultation is the preferred contact modality. Shared decision making should be used to choose the preferred interaction modality. For patients with low digital skills, support might be needed or video consultation may not be the preferred choice.

  • surgical oncology
  • gastrointestinal diseases
  • colorectal surgey
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000512

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @estherbarsom, @marliesschijven

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

    • Ethics approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This is an observational study. The medical ethics committee exempted this study from approval and a formal ethics approval was waived.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.