You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making V (PD60)1 Sep 2021PD60-04 NEW PATIENT VIDEO VISITS FOR COMMON UROLOGICAL CONDITIONS DO NOT LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN SECONDARY VISITS Jake Clafin, Juan Andino, Lauren McGee, Chad Ellimoottil, and Emma Bethel Jake ClafinJake Clafin More articles by this author , Juan AndinoJuan Andino More articles by this author , Lauren McGeeLauren McGee More articles by this author , Chad EllimoottilChad Ellimoottil More articles by this author , and Emma BethelEmma Bethel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002097.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: As policymakers formulate post-COVID-19 pandemic telehealth policies, there is concern that the expansion of video visits will lead to inadequate or unnecessary care which may result in an increase in secondary visits. We investigated whether new patients evaluated through video visits required additional urology visits, procedures, emergency department visits, or hospital admissions compared to an in-person control group. METHODS: We reviewed all new patient video visits performed through Michigan Medicine Urology from March – May 2020 for lower urinary tract symptoms, elevated PSA, nephrolithiasis, and scrotal pain. We performed a 1:1 match of this cohort to a cohort of patients who were evaluated in-person for the same conditions, during the same three month period in 2019. Our primary outcome was the percentage of visits associated with additional urology evaluations within 30 days of the first visit. RESULTS: There were 418 patients who had a new patient video visit during the study period (42% for lower urinary tract symptoms, 32% nephrolithiasis, 18% elevated PSA, 8% scrotal pain). Patients both video visit and in-person cohorts had a similar rate of secondary visits within one (30.9% vs 25.4%, p=0.21) or three months (52.7% vs 48.8%, p=0.43) of the initial evaluation. There were no differences in numbers of procedures completed (33.5% vs 37.3%, p=0.41), ER visits (6.7% vs 5.7%, p=0.69), or hospital admissions (2.4% vs 3.8%, p=0.4). No differences were seen within diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: New patient video visits do not result in an increase in secondary healthcare visits compared to in-person evaluation. This data suggests that new patient video visits can be used as a safe substitute for an in-person evaluation. Source of Funding: 1 K08 HS027632-01 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1061-e1062 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jake Clafin More articles by this author Juan Andino More articles by this author Lauren McGee More articles by this author Chad Ellimoottil More articles by this author Emma Bethel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...