摘要
Introduction: Telemedicine has been used as a tool for improving access to health services worldwide. The aim of the present study is thus to evaluate the effectiveness of urological consultation by videoconference, perceptions regarding safety on the part of medical teams providing video consultation services and patient satisfaction after a urological appointment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, observational, and analytical study was carried out with 50 volunteers referred from the basic health unit for a urology appointment. All patients were evaluated remotely by videoconference and in person by different urology teams. Results: The study revealed that effectiveness in terms of the degree of match between diagnoses performed by video consultation and those performed in person was 92%. The urology team’s perception regarding safety, measured using an in-house safety questionnaire, was high for both videoconferencing and in-person consultations and there was no statistical difference between the two (overall safety score for video consultation compared to in-person consultation was 9.7 ± 0.8 compared to 9.6 ± 0.8 and the p-value was 0.3 for Student’s t-test). Patient satisfaction with the appointment was similarly high for both groups, averaging 9.72 ± 0.4 among patients who attended a video consultation and 9.82 ± 0.4 among those whose consultation was conducted in person, with a p-value of 0.10478 for Student’s t-test. Conclusion: Video consultation in urology is an effective way to perform diagnoses, with high levels of perceived safety among urologists and high satisfaction rates among patients.
Introduction: Telemedicine has been used as a tool for improving access to health services worldwide. The aim of the present study is thus to evaluate the effectiveness of urological consultation by videoconference, perceptions regarding safety on the part of medical teams providing video consultation services and patient satisfaction after a urological appointment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, observational, and analytical study was carried out with 50 volunteers referred from the basic health unit for a urology appointment. All patients were evaluated remotely by videoconference and in person by different urology teams. Results: The study revealed that effectiveness in terms of the degree of match between diagnoses performed by video consultation and those performed in person was 92%. The urology team’s perception regarding safety, measured using an in-house safety questionnaire, was high for both videoconferencing and in-person consultations and there was no statistical difference between the two (overall safety score for video consultation compared to in-person consultation was 9.7 ± 0.8 compared to 9.6 ± 0.8 and the p-value was 0.3 for Student’s t-test). Patient satisfaction with the appointment was similarly high for both groups, averaging 9.72 ± 0.4 among patients who attended a video consultation and 9.82 ± 0.4 among those whose consultation was conducted in person, with a p-value of 0.10478 for Student’s t-test. Conclusion: Video consultation in urology is an effective way to perform diagnoses, with high levels of perceived safety among urologists and high satisfaction rates among patients.
