Endoscopy-related Phone Consultation During the COVID-19 Outbreak
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
The aim of this study is to evaluate patient and consultant experiences with phone consultations for endoscopy-related outpatient appointments during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
---|---|---|
|
Detailed Description
Telephone consultations as a method for telehealth do not provide visual cues and limit interpretation of visual signs such as visualization of skin lesions. However, the need of such feedback is almost non-existent for endoscopy-related consultations as their purpose is focused. The main foci of endoscopy-related outpatient clinics are two: 1 - inform and consent the patient for an endoscopic procedure that is to be done in the near future; 2 - explain the results of a recent procedure already performed and which has a copy provided to the patient. Therefore, phone consultations might be a good fit for endoscopy-related outpatient clinics. The practicalities and indications for the use of phone consults has been described by van Galen & Car (2018) and fit the above description.
Patients will be invited to participate only after the consultation have been finalised and all questions regarding the endoscopic procedure to be done/that was done have been clarified. Patients and consultants will fill questionnaires to evaluate the phone consultation.
The primary outcome will the the comparison of "failed to attend" (FTA) occurrences compared to a similar period of the past year. Secondary outcomes will be patients' and consultants' satisfaction with the phone consultation.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
---|---|
Phone consult group Information collected prospectively on FTA patients and questionnaire (satisfaction) |
Other: None - NA
Observational study
|
Face-to-face consult group Information collected retrospectively on FTA patients |
Other: None - NA
Observational study
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Failed to attend patients [2 months]
percentage of patients that did not answer phone calls (at least 3 calls) or with documented FTA for the retrospective group.
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Patient satisfaction with the phone consult [2 months]
Assessed through an online/hardcopy questionnaire based on previous studies on telehealth (adapted from Barsom et al. 2020 - MSF and PAT-VC questionnaires). These are mostly Likert-scale response mode statements.
- Consultant satisfaction with the phone consult [2 months]
Assessed through an online/hardcopy questionnaire based on previous studies on telehealth (adapted from Barsom et al. 2020). These are mostly Likert-scale response mode statements.
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Patients booked for an outpatient consultation in the Post-Endoscopy clinic or Advanced Endoscopy clinic
-
Consultation determined to be held over the phone as per preventive measures due to the COVID-19 outbreak
-
Age > 18 years
-
Ability to give informed consent
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Phone consultation done with a relative as per patient's preference or inability to talk over the phone
-
Patient that is deemed as confused/not able to understand
-
Unwilling/unable to participate in the post-consultation survey
Contacts and Locations
Locations
Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Austin Health | Melbourne | Victoria | Australia | 3084 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Austin Health
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Sujievvan Chandran, MD, Consultant Gastroenterologist
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- Barsom EZ, Jansen M, Tanis PJ, van de Ven AWH, Blussé van Oud-Alblas M, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP. Video consultation during follow up care: effect on quality of care and patient- and provider attitude in patients with colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1278-1287. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07499-3. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
- van Galen LS, Car J. Telephone consultations. BMJ. 2018 Mar 29;360:k1047. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1047. Review.
- 38839