Patient Satisfaction and Cost Savings Analysis of the Telemedicine Program within a Neuro- Oncology Program

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract PURPOSE: Unique challenges exist in the utilization of telemedicine for neurological and surgical specialties. We examined the differences in patient satisfaction for telemedicine versus in-person visits within a Neuro-Oncology Program to assess whether there was a difference between surgical and medical specialties. We also examined the potential cost savings benefits of utilizing telemedicine. METHODS: 1189 Press Ganey surveys in the Department of Neuro-Oncology (982 in-person and 207 telemedicine) by surgical and medical neuro-oncology patients between 04/01/2020 and 06/30/2021 were reviewed. Survey results were divided into 4 categories (Access, Provider, Technology (telemedicine only), and Overall Satisfaction). Results were analyzed for the impact of telemedicine versus in-person visits, and gender, age, insurance, and specialty. Cost savings were calculated based on potential travel distance and lost productivity. RESULTS: Survey results from telemedicine visits demonstrated that patients with private insurance returned higher scores in the Provider (p=0.0089), Technology (p=0.00187), and Overall (p=0.00382) categories. Surgical visits returned higher scores for Access (p=0.0015), Technology (p=0.0002), and Overall (p=0.0019). When comparing telemedicine to in-person scores, in-person scored higher in Provider (p=0.0092) for all patients, while in-person scored higher in Access (p=0.0252) amongst surgical patients. Cost analysis revealed that telemedicine allowed patients to save an average of 3.7 to 4.8 hours per visit time and a potential loss of productivity of up to $223.27 ±171.41. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine yields equivalent patient satisfaction when employed in surgical as compared to medical Neuro-Oncology patients with the potential to lessen the financial and time burden on neuro-oncology patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.