Preoperative anxiety after face-to-face patient assessment versus preanaesthesia telemedicine (PANTEM) in adults: a randomised clinical trial

Improvement in Adherance to Anesthesia Preoperative Appointment With Telemedicine: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the sudden demand for virtual medical visits drove the expansion of telemedicine across all medical specialties. Current literature demonstrates limited knowledge of the impact of telehealth on appointment adherence, particularly in preoperative anesthesia evaluations. This study aims to describe the impact of telemedicine-based anesthesia evaluation and its effects on appointment completion.  Methods: This was a retrospective, non-randomized, cohort study of adult patients at the University of California, Los Angeles, United States, who received preoperative anesthesia evaluations by telemedicine or in-person in an academic medical center. From January to September 2021, we evaluated telemedicine and in-person appointment completion in patients scheduled for surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of appointment completion. The secondary outcomes included appointment no-shows and cancellations.  Results: Of 1332 patients included in this study, 956 patients received telehealth visits while 376 patients received in-person preoperative anesthesia evaluations. Compared to the in-person group, the telemedicine group had more appointment completions (81.38% vs 76.60%), fewer cancellations (12.55% vs 19.41%), and no statistical difference in appointment no-shows (6.07% vs 3.99%). Compared to the in-person group, patients who received telemedicine evaluations were younger (55.81 ± 18.38 vs 65.97 ± 15.19), less likely Native American and Alaska Native (0.31% vs 1.60%), more likely of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (16.63% vs 12.23%), required less interpreter services (4.18% vs 9.31%), had more private insurance coverage (53.45% vs 37.50%) and less Medicare coverage (37.03% vs 50.53%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that telemedicine can improve preoperative anesthesia appointment completion and decrease appointment cancellations. We also demonstrate potential shortcomings of telemedicine in serving patients who are older, require interpreter services, or are non-privately insured. These inequities highlight potential avenues to increase equity and access to telemedicine.

Development, implementation and evaluation of high-quality virtual preoperative anaesthetic assessment during COVID-19 and beyond: a quality improvement report

BACKGROUND

Preoperative risk factor identification and optimisation are widely accepted as the gold standard of care for elective surgery and are essential for reducing morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 public health restrictions required a careful balance between ensuring best medical practices and maintaining safety by minimising patient face-to-face attendance in the hospital. Based on the successful implementation of telemedicine (TM) in other medical specialties and its feasibility in the preoperative context, this study aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a high-quality virtual preoperative anaesthetic assessment process.

METHODS

The three-step model for improvement was used. The specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, time aim (step 1) and measures for improvement (step 2) were defined at the onset of the project. The plan-do-study-act tool was used for the structured implementation of improvement interventions (step 3) in three phases. Data relating to virtual and in-person referrals, assessments, did-not-attend (DNA) rate, consultation time, day of surgery delays and cancellations, and service-user and provider experience surveys were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 2805 patients were assessed in the preoperative anaesthetic assessment clinic between July 2020 and March 2021. The mean rate of virtual preoperative assessments was 50% (SD ±10) (1390/2805). 0.1% (30/2805) were inappropriately referred on the alternative pathway. The DNA rate was 0.4% (8/1398) and 3% (43/1458) for virtual and in-person pathways, respectively. The mean consultation times for virtual and in-person attendance were 19 (SD ±7) and 31 (SD ±13) min, respectively. There were five same-day surgery cancellations and one delay due to medical reasons. When asked about their experience with the virtual assessment, both service users and providers reported high satisfaction, minimal technical difficulties and shared concerns about limited opportunities for physical examination.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first implementational studies to comprehensively outline the feasibility of TM in preoperative anaesthetic assessment during COVID-19.