Virtual consultation in paediatric urology during the COVID-19 pandemic: The effect of pathology on the outcome. (August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: ElAgami, Hesham; Woodward, Benjamin; Awolaran, Gbenga; Kalidasan, Varadarajan
• Is Part Of: Journal of telemedicine and telecare. Volume 28:Number 7(2022)
• Page Start: 539
• Page End: 546
• Publication Date: 2022-08
• Subjects: Remote consultation -- ehealth -- teleconsulting -- telehealth -- virtual consultation -- pathology; Telecommunication in medicine -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1177/1357633X221076967
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1357-633X

Abstract

Introduction: Virtual consultation (VC) has exponentially increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lessons from using this modality during the pandemic will need to be appraised carefully before integrating it into the routine practice. Some paediatric urology patients can potentially be excellent candidates for routine VC. Objectives: Investigate the ability of clinicians to make management plans using VCs and identify accordingly the group of patients that can benefit from routine VC. Evaluate the routine use of VC without travel restrictions. Methods: Designed in two phases. Phase 1, during the lockdown, prospective collection of data after the consultation assessing the clinician satisfaction in making a decision by VC. The results were then divided according to the patient pathology; internal organ pathology (IOP), functional urological pathology (FUP) or external organ pathology (EOP). Data was then analysed to demonstrate if different outcomes can be related to the pathology. Phase 2 after the ease of the lockdown to judge the lessons learnt looking at the same parameters in patients who are selected to receive VC and evaluate journey saved by the patients, measured in miles. Results: One hundred and forty-four consultations were assessed. One hundred and fourteen in phase 1 and 30 from phase 2. Mean age 7.2 years. In phase 1, 57% of patients were reviewed by consultants and 72% were followed up. Thirty-seven per cent had IOP, 24.5% FUP and 38.5% EOP. Clinicians were more likely to reach a decision with patients with IOP and FUP P < 0.0001 and 0.0024, respectively. Phase 2 demonstrated the change of practice where 93% of the patients were either IOP or FUP. An average of 27 miles per patient was saved on journeys. Discussion: VC for paediatric urology patients was employed effectively to avoid hospital contact during the lockdown. From the lessons learnt that patients with IOP and FUP can continue to benefit from VC after the ease of lockdown without compromising the decision making. VC is a viable way to structure services in the future for selected paediatric urology conditions.