Barsom EZ1, Jansen M1, Tanis PJ2, van de Ven AWH3, Blussé van Oud-Alblas M2, Buskens CJ2, Bemelman WA2, Schijven MP4,5.
1. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3. Department of Surgery, FlevoHospital Almere, Almere, The Netherlands.
4. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.p.schijven@amsterdamumc.nl.
5. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Room: G4-133.1, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.p.schijven@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Video consultation (VC) is gaining attention as a possible alternative to out-patient clinic visits. However, little is known in terms of attitude, satisfaction and quality of care using VC over a face-to-face (F2F) consultation. The aim of this observational survey study was to compare the attitude and satisfaction with VC amongst patients suffering from colorectal cancer and their treating surgeons at the outpatient surgical care clinic in a tertiary referral centre.
METHODS:
A patient-preference model was chosen following the concept of shared decision making. A total of fifty patients with colorectal cancer were asked to choose between VC- or a F2F-contact during their follow up at the outpatient surgical care clinic and were subsequently assigned to either the VC-group or the F2F-group. Attitude and satisfaction rates of both groups and their surgeons were measured using a questionnaire administered immediately after the consultation.
RESULTS:
Out of the 50 patients, 42% chose VC as their preferred follow-up modality. Patients demographics did not differ significantly. Patients who use video calling in their personal life choose VC significantly more often than patients lacking such experience (p = 0.010). These patients scored high on both the attitude- and satisfaction scale of the post-VC questionnaire. Patients who chose a F2F-contact seemed to question the ability of the surgeon to properly assess their healthcare condition by using a video connection more (p = 0.024). Surgeons were highly satisfied with the use of VC.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on patient preference, VC is equivalent to a F2F consultation in terms of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care. Shared decision making is preferred with regard to which contact modality is used during follow up. For easy uptake in other environments it is to be recommended to facilitate VC using the electronic patient portal.
KEYWORDS:
Colorectal cancer; Patient preference; Satisfaction; Shared decision making; Surgery; Telemedicine; Video consultation; Virtual visit; eHealth
