The Current State of Telemedicine in Urology

Miller, Anthony; Rhee, Eugene; Gettman, Matthew T.; Spitz, Aaron

doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2017.10.014

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research exploring patient perspectives around video visits has found that patients self-report interest and satisfaction with video visits (7)(8)(9)(10). In this study, we build on the research by performing semi-structured interviews with patients after they have experienced a urological video visit.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the patient experience with urological video visits at an academic medical center

Thelen-Perry

Ved

Ellimoottil

2018

mHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Telemedicine utilization, including use of video visits, is growing rapidly. While much enthusiasm surrounds telemedicine, the successful implementation of video visits within health systems requires providers to evaluate patient's experience with the implemented technology and workflow. Methods: Twenty patients who completed a video visit in the Department of Urology at Michigan Medicine were contacted and asked if they would be willing to share their experience. Patients underwent a semi-structured telephone interview. Using an interview guide, patients were asked questions about the enrollment process, their overall impression of the visit, and feedback to improve the visit. Interview comments were categorized into three primary themes: usability, quality of the visit, and comparison to a traditional in-clinic visit. Results: Most patients who underwent a urological video visit were highly satisfied with their experience. Most patients also reported being able to join the video visit with minimal issues. However, some patients expressed issues downloading the application and interpreting our educational materials. In regard to quality of the visit, most patients were impressed and pleased. While there was no criticism regarding the picture-quality of the video visit, a few patients reported issues with the audio. It was apparent that quality of video was dependent on quality of the patient's internet connection. When comparing the video visit to a traditional in-clinic visit, patients-especially parents with children at home-found the video visit to be more efficient. Conclusions: Our study found that patients were pleased with their urological video visit experience, and there were details about our workflow that would not have been evident without interviews. These findings suggest that while video visits are suitable alternatives to in-clinic appointments at academic medical centers, it is important for providers to obtain direct feedback from patients to identify workflow and technical issues.

show abstract

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the patient experience with urological video visits at an academic medical center

Thelen-Perry

Ved

Ellimoottil

2018

mHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with renal cancer had the highest number of risk factors (median 5 [4][5][6], followed by patients with Fig. 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Telemedicine Online Visits in Urology During the COVID-19 Pandemic—Potential, Risk Factors, and Patients’ Perspective

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goals for urologists during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are to prevent their patients from getting COVID-19, protect themselves as health care professionals, and deliver optimal urology care [1]. While prioritisation strategies are being proposed [2,3], further measures are warranted for multifaceted action plans towards optimal perpetuation of urology care during the pandemic [4]. Urological telemedicine can lead to (1) fewer patient contacts, (2) lower infection rates among the staff, and (3) continuation of urological care by quarantined urologists [5]. However, the proportion of patients eligible for telemedicine, their wish to use telemedicine, and their demographic risk profile for acquiring a severe pandemic infection are unknown. In this context, we tested the potential of telemedicine in urology. We evaluated patients' eligibility for telemedicine according to the physician and examined the patients' perspective by evaluating their willingness for telemedicine.

show abstract

“…32 Virtual consultation, teleconferenced followup care, and remote rounds may be increasingly incorporated into clinical practice thereby broadening the geographic footprint of a practice. 33,34 Reimbursement for telemedicine, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance, technical challenges particularly in rural communities, health literacy, and lack of ability to perform procedures must be overcome prior to widespread adoption. 35,36 There is already evidence that the rural patients most likely to benefit from telemedicine are not those participating.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting Limited Access to Urology in Rural Communities: Analysis of the American Urological Association Census

Cohen

Fergus

Lindsey

et al. 2019

The Journal of Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess an aging subspecialty workforce and growing population that portends challenges in meeting patient care needs. We hypothesized that rural physicians are retiring at higher rates than their urban counterparts in the United States and that this represents a bellwether for workforce challenges at large. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2014-2016 American Urological Association Census, a sample-weighted representative survey of urologists, as a case study for subspecialists. We compared urologists who work in rural regions to nonrural regions on available characteristics. Results: In 2016, rural urologists accounted for 2.4% of 12,186 practicing urologists in the United States. General urology remained the focus of 90% of rural urologists, compared to 59% of nonrural urologists (P = .03). Alarmingly, 48% of rural physicians were >65 years old in 2016 compared to 29% in 2014, and 33% of rural urologists were solo practitioners compared to 9% of nonrural urologists (P < .01). The planned retirement age for rural physicians increased from 68 in 2014 to 73 in 2016 (P trend = .02). The percentage of rural practice urologists has remained stable since 2014. Conclusions: Rural urologists are older and provide more general urological care than their nonrural counterparts. Rural urologists are postponing retirement. Although this might be due to personal desires and financial goals, it may also be due to a relative absence of potential junior partners. Given that almost 50% of rural urologists were older than 65 in 2016, this is not a sustainable solution to an impending shortage of physicians. Greater innovation in telemedicine or alternative care models will soon be needed.

show abstract

The Current State of Telemedicine in Urology

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluating the patient experience with urological video visits at an academic medical center

Evaluating the patient experience with urological video visits at an academic medical center

Telemedicine Online Visits in Urology During the COVID-19 Pandemic—Potential, Risk Factors, and Patients’ Perspective

Forecasting Limited Access to Urology in Rural Communities: Analysis of the American Urological Association Census

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About