To assess the feasibility, patient/provider satisfaction, and perceived value of telehealth spine consultation after rapid conversion from traditional in-office visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods
Data were obtained for patients undergoing telehealth visits with spine surgeons in the first 3 weeks after government restriction of elective surgical care at 4 sites (March 23, 2020, to April 17, 2020). Demographic factors, technique-specific elements of the telehealth experience, provider confidence in diagnostic and therapeutic assessment, patient/surgeon satisfaction, and perceived value were collected.
Results
A total of 128 unique visits were analyzed. New (74 [58%]), preoperative (26 [20%]), and postoperative (28 [22%]) patients were assessed. A total of 116 (91%) visits had successful connection on the first attempt. Surgeons felt very confident 101 times (79%) when assessing diagnosis and 107 times (84%) when assessing treatment plan. The mean and median patient satisfaction was 89% and 94%, respectively. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for video over audio-only visits (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different with patient age, location of chief complaint (cervical or thoracolumbar), or visit type (new, preoperative, or postoperative). Providers reported that 76% of the time they would choose to perform the visit again in telehealth format. Sixty percent of patients valued the visit cost as the same or slightly less than an in-office consultation.
Conclusions
This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility and high patient/provider satisfaction of virtual spine surgical consultation, and appropriate reimbursement and balanced regulation for spine telehealth care is essential to continue this existing work.
Key words
COVID-19
Patient satisfaction
Spine surgery
Telehealth
Virtual consultation
Abbreviations and Acronyms
IQR
Interquartile range
Cited by (0)
Conflict of interest statement: S. K. Williams reports personal fees from DePuy Synthes Spine, personal fees from Stryker Spine, personal fees and other from Titan Spine, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from SeaSpine, personal fees from AOTrauma, outside the submitted work. P. A. Anderson reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius medical, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees and other from Titan Spine, other from Regeneration Technologies Inc., outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.