Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant shift in the way clinical consultations are conducted with a rapid transition towards remote consultations (teleclinics). Although face-to-face (F2F) clinics are being re-introduced in the post-pandemic era, a significant proportion of clinics continue to run remotely. Despite the inability to physically examine the patient, remote clinics have notable advantages such as increased accessibility and flexibility for both the clinician and the patient. Purpose As the healthcare model moves increasingly towards a hybrid system where both F2F and teleclinics coexist, we sought to analyse the differences in practice between the two groups. Methods This single-centre retrospective analysis of patients referred to specialist cardiology services with NOCP compared face-to-face (F2F) consultations with teleclinic consultations. 70 patients were randomly selected in each category from a list of patients with NOCP that were referred to a tertiary cardiac centre from January to December 2021. Teleclinic appointments were conducted via telephone while F2F clinics had the patients visit the hospital for their appointments. Results The main findings are tabulated in Table 1. The samples for the two categories were evenly matched. Teleclinic appointments had a significantly reduced waiting time compared to F2F clinic (4 vs 6 weeks, p= 0.0009). As expected, the teleclinic group had reduced access to examination findings such as blood pressure, heart rate, and ECG. There was no significant difference in an initial working diagnosis of typical angina between the F2F group and the teleclinic group (30% and 25.7% respectively, p=0.706). However, patients in the F2F group were more likely to have anti-anginal therapy commenced compared to teleclinic group (50% vs 27.1% respectively, p=0.0089) following initial clinic review. Also, they were more likely to undergo an invasive coronary angiogram (30% vs 12.9% in F2F and teleclinic groups respectively, p=0.0224). However, this did not lead to a significant increase in PCIs performed in the F2F group. More patients had non-invasive tests requested in the teleclinic group compared to the F2F clinic group (62.9% vs 50% respectively, p=0.17) although this was not significant the median number of total investigations requested were the same in both the group. Conclusion Telephone consultations appear to be a reasonable alternative to F2F consultations with reduced waiting times and no significant impact on investigations ordered. However, lack of key examination findings may have hampered prescription of anti-anginal medications. Provisions such as readily available access to GP health care records on examination findings along with a streamlined remote prescription system can help overcome reluctance to prescribe antianginals. Further research is needed to assess clinical outcomes of teleclinic consultations.Table 1