Mp39-01 telemedicine satisfaction and outcomes for adult urological postoperative care: results from the randomized evaluation and metrics observing telemedicine efficacy (remote) trial

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP39-01 TELEMEDICINE SATISFACTION AND OUTCOMES FOR ADULT UROLOGICAL POSTOPERATIVE CARE: RESULTS FROM THE RANDOMIZED EVALUATION AND METRICS OBSERVING TELEMEDICINE EFFICACY (REMOTE) TRIAL Mustufa Babar, Denzel Zhu, Justin Loloi, Melissa Laudano, Erin Ohmann, Nitya Abraham, Alexander Small, and Kara Watts Mustufa BabarMustufa Babar More articles by this author , Denzel ZhuDenzel Zhu More articles by this author , Justin LoloiJustin Loloi More articles by this author , Melissa LaudanoMelissa Laudano More articles by this author , Erin OhmannErin Ohmann More articles by this author , Nitya AbrahamNitya Abraham More articles by this author , Alexander SmallAlexander Small More articles by this author , and Kara WattsKara Watts More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002599.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Postoperative visits are common in urology practice. Given the expansion of telemedicine (TM), there is a need to better understand the role of postoperative care via TM. We evaluated patient satisfaction and outcomes of postoperative in-person (IP) versus TM visits for adult ambulatory urologic surgery in an urban academic center. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. At surgery, patients undergoing ambulatory endourologic, penoscrotal, or urogynecologic surgery were randomized 1:1 to a postoperative IP or TM visit. After the assigned visit, a telephone survey assessing satisfaction was administered. Patient demographics and 30 day postoperative complications (e.g. readmission, infection, urinary retention) were collected. Outcomes between IP and TM groups were compared using Chi-square tests. Primary outcome was patient satisfaction; secondary outcome was 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: 132 patients were approached; 102 consented and were randomized - 46 (45%) to IP and 56 (54%) to TM cohorts. Operation types included endourologic (79%), penoscrotal (13%), or urogynecologic (8%). 101/102 patients (99%) completed the telephone survey. There were no significant differences in age, gender, race/ethnicity, preferred language, or insurance type between IP and TM cohorts. Both IP and TM cohorts were equally satisfied with their postoperative visit (100% vs. 94.6%, respectively, p=0.28) and found their visit to be an acceptable form of healthcare (97.8% vs. 92.9%, respectively, p=0.46). TM cohort had significantly shorter overall appointment time requirement (67.9% <15 minutes and 85.8% <30 minutes) and travel time savings (Table 1). There were no significant differences in 30 day postoperative complications between the IP and TM groups. There were no significant differences in overall satisfaction or 30 day postoperative complications between operation types. CONCLUSIONS: TM for adult postoperative care saves patients a significant amount of time without compromising patient satisfaction or safety for ambulatory urologic or urogynecologic surgery. TM is a feasible option for routine postoperative care in urology and should be offered to patients as an alternative to IP follow up. Source of Funding: We were supported by the Harold and Muriel Block Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Einstein and Montefiore (UL1TR002556) © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e664 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mustufa Babar More articles by this author Denzel Zhu More articles by this author Justin Loloi More articles by this author Melissa Laudano More articles by this author Erin Ohmann More articles by this author Nitya Abraham More articles by this author Alexander Small More articles by this author Kara Watts More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...