Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the impact of using a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. Materials and methods Women, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Both groups completed a validated, web-based interactive, patient-reported outome measure (ePAQ-Pelvic Floor), in advance of their appointment followed by either a telephone consultation (Virtual Clinic) or face-to-face consultation (Standard Care). The primary outcome was the mean ‘short-term outcome scale’ score on the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary Outcome Measures included the other domains of the PEQ (Communications, Emotions and Barriers), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), personal, societal and NHS costs. Results 195 women were randomised: 98 received the intervention and 97 received standard care. The primary outcome showed a non-significant difference between the two study arms. No significant differences were also observed on the CSQ and SF-12. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher PEQ domain scores for Communications, Emotions and Barriers (including following adjustment for age and parity). Whilst standard care was overall more cost-effective, this was minimal (£38.04). The virtual clinic also significantly reduced consultation time (10.94 minutes, compared with a mean duration of 25.9 minutes respectively) and consultation costs compared to usual care (£31.75 versus £72.17 respectively), thus presenting potential cost-savings in out-patient management. Conclusions The virtual clinical had no impact on the short-term dimension of the PEQ and overall was not as cost-effective as standard care, due to greater clinic re-attendances in this group. In the virtual clinic group, consultation times were briefer, communication experience was enhanced and personal costs lower. For medical conditions of a sensitive or intimate nature, a virtual clinic has potential to support patients to communicate with health professionals about their condition.

[1]  S. M. Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose,et al.  Increasing Discussion Rates of Incontinence in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2015, Journal of women's health.

[2]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[3]  C. Carswell Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Valuation , 2007, PharmacoEconomics.

[4]  Miriam Vollenbroek-Hutten,et al.  A telehealth program for self-management of COPD exacerbations and promotion of an active lifestyle: a pilot randomized controlled trial , 2014, International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

[5]  G. Jones,et al.  Development of an instrument to measure face validity, feasibility and utility of patient questionnaire use during health care: the QQ-10. , 2012, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[6]  N. Goldfarb,et al.  Evaluating Health‐Related Quality of Life: Cost Comparison of Computerized Touch‐Screen Technology and Traditional Paper Systems , 2000, Pharmacotherapy.

[7]  Joyce A. Mitchell,et al.  Electronic Communication With Patients: Evaluation of Distance Medicine Technology , 1997 .

[8]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Accessibility, clinical effectiveness, and practice costs of providing a telephone option for routine asthma reviews: phase IV controlled implementation study. , 2007, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  David Moher,et al.  Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  N. Leidy,et al.  A Comparative Trial of Paper-and-Pencil Versus Computer Administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) Questionnaire , 2001, Medical care.

[11]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. , 2016, Health economics.

[12]  F. Mortimer,et al.  The follow-up of renal transplant recipients by telephone consultation: three years experience from a single UK renal unit. , 2010, Clinical medicine.

[13]  D. Forman,et al.  Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  P. Jenkins,et al.  The virtual fracture clinic: Reducing unnecessary review of clavicle fractures. , 2017, Injury.

[15]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[16]  C. Urquhart,et al.  Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2000, Nursing times.

[17]  S. Ramsey,et al.  Design issues for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses alongside clinical trials. , 2001, Annual review of public health.

[18]  G. Jones,et al.  Responsiveness of the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire-Pelvic Floor (ePAQ-PF) , 2009, International Urogynecology Journal.

[19]  J. Brazier,et al.  The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health From the SF-12 , 2004, Medical care.

[20]  S. Radley,et al.  Computer interviewing in urogynaecology: concept, development and psychometric testing of an electronic pelvic floor assessment questionnaire in primary and secondary care , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  W. Hargreaves,et al.  Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. , 1979, Evaluation and program planning.

[22]  นริศา คำแก่น,et al.  Medical Statistics: A Textbook for the Health Sciences , 2012 .

[23]  D. Fine,et al.  Improving outpatient services: the Southampton IBD virtual clinic , 2012, Frontline Gastroenterology.

[24]  A. Finset,et al.  A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. , 2001, Family practice.

[25]  David Moher,et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement , 2013, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[26]  Michael T. Bull,et al.  Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of 'Virtual House Calls' for Parkinson Disease , 2013, JAMA neurology.

[27]  M. Drummond,et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. , 2013, BMJ.

[28]  G. Jones,et al.  Measuring quality of life in urogynaecology , 2004, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[29]  D. Osoba,et al.  Patients' experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. , 1998, Quality of Life Research.

[30]  S. Levy,et al.  Growing up with confidence: using telehealth to support continence self-care deficits amongst young people with complex needs. , 2014, Informatics in primary care.

[31]  J. Wade Davis,et al.  Medical Statistics: A Textbook for the Health Sciences , 2008 .

[32]  G. Dunn,et al.  Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial of hospital versus telephone follow‐up after treatment for breast cancer , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[33]  Hilary Wood,et al.  Understanding women’s experiences of electronic interviewing during the clinical episode in urogynaecology: a qualitative study , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[34]  S. Jha,et al.  Electronic pelvic floor symptoms assessment: tests of data quality of ePAQ-PF , 2008, International Urogynecology Journal.

[35]  S. Dixon,et al.  Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies , 2013, PharmacoEconomics.

[36]  M. O'Donnell,et al.  Assessment of the quality of care and financial impact of a virtual renal clinic compared with the traditional outpatient service model , 2011, International journal of clinical practice.