Study Design: An online survey modeled after the TeleENT Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Medical Communication Competence Scale (MCCS) were administered to gauge patient experience with electronic medical record-based telemedicine visits. Results: Participants noted several advantages of telemedicine visits over traditional in-office visits: shorter visits, saving money, and avoiding potential exposure during the pandemic. Thirty-six percent of the patients agreed that the quality of care was hindered by the lack of a physical exam, and 61.7% of the patients agreed that they prefer a face-to-face visit rather than telemedicine consultation. Most patients were satisfied with the care they received via telemedicine (Likert 6.19/7), and 95.8% of the patients would use telemedicine again. Participants self-reported an average saving of $108.70 when using telemedicine. When comparing the telemedicine cohort to the in-office control, the telemedicine patients noted an improved ability to communicate with their physician in 5 out of 8 domains of the MCCS. Conclusion: Surgical preoperative consultation, postoperative follow-up, and routine visits were conducted via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, representing a new direction for surgical appointments and consultations. This study shows that telehealth provides satisfactory care and increases access to surgical care for patients when external factors prevent the traditional physician–patient interaction. With better-perceived communication via telemedicine appointments, patients may subjectively feel that they can express their symptoms and gather information from the doctor regarding their diagnosis more efficiently.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.