Teleneurology Satisfaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic (P1-4.002)

Abstract

<h3>Objective:</h3> To determine whether patient satisfaction with teleneurology is as good or better than satisfaction with in-person visits and if teleneurology patient satisfaction has been consistent from 2020 to 2021 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. <h3>Background:</h3> While telehealth has existed since the 1950s, there has been slow adoption and coverage in the U.S. Just before the COVID-19 pandemic, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) averaged 5–10 direct-to-patient telehealth visits per day. The pandemic led the federal government to implement public health emergency policies that removed barriers to the adoption of telehealth. Within one month, direct-to-patient telehealth visits increased to over 2,000 per day. We report here a review of patient satisfaction data, collected through quality improvement projects. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> Patients received satisfaction surveys via email. They rated their interactions with their neurologist, the care provided, and whether they felt the care provided met their medical needs. Using the Mann-Whitney U Test to control for sampling size disproportions, we compared teleneurology satisfaction to in-person satisfaction and teleneurology satisfaction at two different time points. <h3>Results:</h3> From March 1st, 2020 to May 31st, 2021, 1,053 patients completed surveys rating their teleneurology visit and 2,850 patients completed surveys rating their in-person visit. The average rating for teleneurology was above 96% compared to 94% for in-person visits. Comparing 2020 teleneurology visits to 2021 teleneurology visits, patients gave an average rating of 97% in 2020 and a 96% average rating in 2021. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Patient satisfaction with teleneurology is as good or better than satisfaction with in-person visits and has been consistent from 2020 to 2021. Moving forward, access to telehealth must remain a vital part of our healthcare delivery system. <b>Disclosure:</b> Mr. Sharp has stock in AbbVie. Mr. Sharp has stock in Abbott. Mr. Makani has nothing to disclose. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as a Consultant for Supernus. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Revance. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Merz. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Newronika. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Ipsen. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Iota. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Abbott. Dr. Charles has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for AbbVie. Dr. Charles has stock in Arena Therapeutics. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Pharma 2 B. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Intec. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Merz. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Novartis. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Aeon. The institution of Dr. Charles has received research support from Impax. Ms. Harper has nothing to disclose.