虚拟与面对面神经科门诊新患者后续医疗利用比较:病例对照研究
该多中心回顾性队列研究比较了虚拟与面对面神经科新患者门诊就诊后90天内的后续医疗利用情况。经过倾向性评分匹配后,两组在神经科随访率、神经科及全因急诊就诊和住院率上总体相似,但不同主诉的随访模式存在差异,且某些主诉面对面就诊后检查更频繁。
要点
- 虚拟与面对面新患者神经科门诊后90天神经科随访率无显著差异(24.6% vs 23.7%)。
- 两组90天神经科急诊就诊率(0.9% vs 0.8%)和住院率(1.8% vs 1.7%)相似。
- 不同主诉随访模式有差异:痴呆面对面随访更高,帕金森病和多发性硬化虚拟随访更高。
核心结论
- 虚拟神经科新患者门诊与面对面就诊的后续医疗利用总体相似。
研究设计与样本
- 多中心回顾性队列研究,使用Vizient临床数据库和临床实践解决方案中心数据库。
主要发现
- 90天神经科随访率虚拟组24.6%,面对面组23.7%,差异无统计学意义(p=0.18)。
- 30天神经科随访虚拟组略低,6个月和1年随访两组相似。
- 90天神经科急诊就诊率虚拟组0.9%,面对面组0.8%(p=0.23);神经科住院率1.8% vs 1.7%(p=0.47)。
- 90天全因急诊就诊率虚拟组1.8%,面对面组1.7%(p=0.59);全因住院率2.2% vs 1.8%(p=0.13)。
- 按主诉分析:痴呆面对面就诊90天随访更高;帕金森病和多发性硬化虚拟就诊30天和90天随访更高;头痛虚拟就诊90天随访更高;某些主诉面对面就诊后检查更频繁。
临床怎么用
- 虚拟神经科新患者门诊可作为合适的替代方式,总体不增加后续急诊和住院风险。
- 针对痴呆患者可能需优先安排面对面随访,而帕金森病、多发性硬化及头痛患者可更多利用虚拟随访。
局限性
- 回顾性研究设计可能存在未测量的混杂因素。
- 仅纳入3个学术医学中心,结果外推性受限。
- 未报告虚拟就诊的具体类型(视频或电话)及患者满意度等信息。
以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。
原文
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Implementation of telemedicine expanded options for outpatient neurology care. It remains uncertain which new neurology patients can be appropriately evaluated virtually. We compared subsequent health care utilization after virtual vs in-person new patient neurology visits across 3 academic medical centers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults with a new outpatient neurology visit from September 2020 through December 2021 using the Vizient Clinical Data Base and Clinical Practice Solutions Center databases. Virtual and in-person patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scores incorporating demographics, clinical characteristics, time period, and previous health care utilization. Outcomes were analyzed overall and stratified by neurologic chief complaint category and institution. We compared rates of subsequent neurologic clinic follow-up, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations after virtual and in-person encounters. Testing and all-cause ED visits/hospitalizations were also assessed. RESULTS: We identified 10,428 virtual and 36,767 in-person neurology new outpatient visits. After propensity score matching, 8,202 virtual visits were matched to 8,202 in-person visits. Neurology follow-up within 90 days did not differ between virtual and in-person visits (24.6% vs 23.7%, p = 0.18). Thirty-day neurology clinic follow-up was slightly lower after virtual visits, whereas follow-up at 6 months and 1 year was similar between groups. Neurologic ED visits and hospitalizations within 90 days were similar (0.9% vs 0.8%, p = 0.23 and 1.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.47, respectively). All-cause ED visits and hospitalizations within 90 days were also comparable (1.8% vs 1.7%, p = 0.59 and 2.2% vs 1.8%, p = 0.13, respectively). Analyses by chief complaint found that 90-day follow-up was higher after in-person visits for dementia, whereas 30- and 90-day follow-up was higher after virtual visits for Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis, and 90-day follow-up was higher after virtual visits for headache. Testing was more frequent after in-person visits for certain chief complaints. DISCUSSION: In this propensity score-matched multicenter cohort, new neurology patients seen virtually had similar downstream utilization as those seen in-person, including comparable 90-day follow-up and similar neurologic and all-cause ED visits and hospitalizations. Although follow-up varied modestly by chief complaint and testing was more frequent after some in-person visits, no major differences emerged overall.
引用
- Hill CE, Lin CC, Harris A, et al. Virtual vs In-Person Neurologic Ambulatory Care: A Case-Control Study of Subsequent Health Care Utilization. Neurology. 2026. PMID: 42018961. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000214989
供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。