Penza, Kristine S

Objective: Compare demographics, treatment, and follow-up rates for patients with complaints of vulvovaginitis suggestive of candida infection evaluated via e-visit, face-to-face (F2F) visits, or nurse-administered phone protocol. Methods: Manual review of 150 vaginitis visits of each visit type (e-visit, F2F, and phone protocol) completed between May 5, 2018 through January 31, 2020 by Mayo Clinic patients residing in Minnesota. Outcomes: Comparison between the three visit types of patient characteristics, treatment rates, type of treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up. Results: Patients utilizing phone visits were significantly older than those seeking care via e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or F2F ( p = 0.001) and were more likely to be treated with oral fluconazole than those treated by e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or F2F ( p < 0.0001) encounters. Patients were significantly less likely to receive fungal directed treatment at a F2F visit than an e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or phone encounter ( p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in follow-up rates between the three groups. Conclusion: Virtual visits (non-F2F) for suspected vulvovaginal candidiasis are unlikely to result in more follow-up visits than F2F encounters; however, prescriptions for antifungals are significantly higher with virtual visits.

Introduction Acute sore throat is a common complaint traditionally completed with an in-person visit. However, non-face-to-face telemedicine visits offer greater access at reduced cost. We evaluated patient/caregiver asynchronous text-based electronic visits (eVisits) for acute sore throat and whether there was concordance for individual components and total McIsaac score compared to a clinician’s assessment. eVisits were completed by patients and/or their caregivers via a secure patient portal. Methods In this retrospective study, we manually reviewed charts between February 2017 and July 2019 of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and group A streptococcal (GAS) test performed on the same day for an acute sore throat. We calculated a McIsaac score for eVisits and in-person visits, and compared each component and total score using Cohen’s kappa agreement statistic. Results There were 320 instances of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and GAS testing done on the same day. Approximately a third of eVisits were missing at least one McIsaac component, with the physical examination elements missing most commonly. Individual score congruence was moderate for cough (0.41), fair for fever (0.34) and slight for tonsillar swelling/exudate and lymphadenopathy (0.17 and 0.08, respectively), with total congruence being slight to fair (0.09–0.37). A McIsaac score of ≤1 showed moderate agreement (0.44). Visits with complete individual score components demonstrated improved congruence: substantial for cough (0.64), moderate for fever (0.57), fair for tonsillar swelling (0.3) and slight for lymphadenopathy (0.13). Discussion Overall agreement for individual score components was better for symptoms than it was for examination components, and was improved when data were complete. A McIsaac score of 1 or 0 had moderate agreement and thus could reasonably be safely used to exclude patients from GAS testing.

Objective The objective of this research paper is to compare antibiotic treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up encounters among eVisits, phone calls, and in-person encounters for pediatric conjunctivitis. Study design A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients evaluated for conjunctivitis between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, was performed. A total of 101 eVisits, 202 in-person retail clinic visits, and 202 nurse phone calls for conjunctivitis were manually reviewed for outcomes. Exclusion criteria included previous encounter for conjunctivitis in the past 14 days, treatment with an oral antibiotic at the initial encounter, or patient outside Minnesota at the time of encounter. Comparison among the three encounter types with regard to follow-up rates, follow-up encounter type within 14 days of initial evaluation, and prescribing rates was performed. Results Patients completing non-face-to-face encounters were significantly more likely to have follow-up care (34.6% and 45.5%) than those who had a face-to-face visit at the retail clinic (7.4%), p ≤ 0.0001. Patients initially evaluated by eVisit were more likely to have follow-up at the retail clinic while patients initially evaluated by phone call were more likely to have follow-up in their primary care office. Treatment rates with antibiotics were significantly higher in phone call encounters (41.6%) than in eVisits (25.7%) or face-to-face encounters (19.8%), p < 0.0001. Conclusions Non-face-to-face visits have significantly higher rates of follow-up when compared to face-to-face encounters. Antibiotic prescribing is greater with phone call triage encounters; however, there was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between eVisits and face-to-face visits. Follow-up type varied according to site of initial encounter.