Patient Satisfaction with Telephone Versus Video-Televisits: A Cross-Sectional Survey of an Urban, Multiethnic Population

OBJECTIVE To examine differences between telephone and video-televisits and identify whether visit modality is associated with satisfaction in an urban, academic general urology practice. METHODS A cross sectional analysis of patients who completed a televisit at our urology practice (summer 2020) was performed. A Likert-based satisfaction telephone survey was offered to patients within 7 days of their televisit. Patient demographics, televisit modality (telephone vs video), and outcomes of the visit (eg follow-up visit scheduled, orders placed) were retrospectively abstracted from each chart and compared between the telephone and video cohorts. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate variables associated with satisfaction while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS A total of 269 patients were analyzed. 73% (196/269) completed a telephone televisit. Compared to the video cohort, the telephone cohort was slightly older (mean 58.8 years vs. 54.2 years, P =.03). There were no significant differences in the frequency of orders placed for medication changes, labs, imaging, or for in-person follow-up visits within 30 days between cohorts. Survey results showed overall 84.7% patients were satisfied, and there was no significant difference between the telephone and video cohorts. Visit type was not associated with satisfaction on multivariable analyses, while use of an interpreter [OR:8.13 (1.00-65.94); P =.05], labs ordered [OR:2.74 (1.12-6.70); P =.03] and female patient gender [OR:2.28 (1.03-5.03); P =.04] were significantly associated with satisfaction. CONCLUSION Overall, most patients were satisfied with their televisit. Additionally, telephone- and video-televisits were similar regarding patient opinions, patient characteristics, and visit outcome. Efforts to increase access and coverage of telehealth, particularly telephone-televisits, should continue past the COVID-19 pandemic. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc.