Time, cost and carbon-efficiency: a silver lining of COVID era virtual urology clinics?

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded radical changes in service delivery. Our centre adopted the use of outpatient telemedicine to reduce close-contact interactions between patients and staff. We hypothesised that incidental gains may be associated with this. We evaluated financial, practical and environmental implications of substituting virtual clinics (VCs) for in-person urology outpatient appointments.

METHODS

VCs were studied over a 3-month period. Based on patient-reported 'usual mode of transport' to the hospital, travel distance, time, petrol and parking costs, and the carbon emissions avoided by virtue of remote consultations were calculated. The underlying symptom/diagnosis and the 'effectiveness' of the VC were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1,016 scheduled consultations, 736 (72.44%) were conducted by VCs over the study period. VCs resulted in an agreed treatment plan in 98.4% of a representative patient sample. The use of VCs was associated with an overall travel distance saving for patients of 31,038 miles (49,951km) over 3 months, with an average round-trip journey of 93.8 miles (151km) avoided for each rural-dwelling patient and an average financial saving of £25.91 (€28.70) per rural-dwelling car traveller. An estimated 1,257.8 hours of patient time were saved by avoidance of travel and clinic waiting times. Based on car-travelling patients alone, a 6.07-tonne reduction in carbon emissions was achieved with the use of VCs.

CONCLUSIONS

In appropriate clinical circumstances, VCs appear to provide efficiency across a number of domains. Future healthcare may involve offering outpatients the option of telemedicine as an alternative to physical attendance.