Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis.
Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 May 4;32(3):1154-1164. doi: 10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00113. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
This study sought to investigate whether a significant difference exists in attendance, cancellations, and no-shows between in-person therapy and telepractice. The authors hypothesized that telepractice no-show and cancellation rates would be less than in-person no-show and cancellation rates.
This retrospective study manually reviewed and analyzed attendance, no-show, and cancellation data over a 3-month span of in-person-only visits (September 2019-November 2019) and a 3-month span of telepractice visits (September 2020-November 2020) conducted at the Emory Voice Center, a tertiary care practice in urban Atlanta, Georgia. Additionally, data were collected for each patient's full course of therapy outside of the 3-month windows and analyzed for attendance, no-show, and cancellation patterns.
Data from 521 patients were available for review from the selected time frame. In 2019 (in-person), 157 patients met inclusion criteria, and in 2020 (telepractice), 176 patients were included. Therapy initiation, therapy attendance, and no-show rates had significant increases in the telepractice year, and cancellations made greater than 24 hr before the appointments had a significant decrease in the telepractice year. Furthermore, the overall course of therapy showed significantly fewer missed appointments and more attended appointments in the telepractice year.
Patients participating in voice therapy via telepractice are more likely to initiate treatment and attend treatment and less likely to cancel sessions compared with patients receiving treatment in person. These data combined with extant data on telepractice treatment efficacy indicate that telepractice should be considered standard of care and offered to all patients seeking treatment, as it removes many reported barriers to treatment.
本研究旨在探讨面对面治疗和远程实践之间在出勤率、取消和失约方面是否存在显著差异。作者假设远程实践的失约和取消率将低于面对面的失约和取消率。
这是一项回顾性研究，作者手动审查和分析了在佐治亚州亚特兰大市的三级保健实践机构——埃默里语音中心进行的为期 3 个月的面对面就诊（2019 年 9 月至 11 月）和为期 3 个月的远程实践就诊（2020 年 9 月至 11 月）的出勤率、失约和取消数据。此外，还收集了每位患者在 3 个月窗口之外的整个治疗过程的数据，并对出勤率、失约和取消模式进行了分析。
从选定的时间范围内，有 521 名患者的数据可供审查。2019 年（面对面），有 157 名患者符合纳入标准，2020 年（远程实践）有 176 名患者符合纳入标准。远程实践年中，治疗启动、治疗出勤率和失约率显著增加，而预约前 24 小时以上取消预约的比例显著下降。此外，整个治疗过程显示，远程实践年的预约失约率显著降低，出勤率显著提高。
与接受面对面治疗的患者相比，通过远程实践接受语音治疗的患者更有可能开始治疗并接受治疗，而取消治疗的可能性较小。这些数据结合现有的远程实践治疗效果数据表明，远程实践应被视为标准治疗方法，并提供给所有寻求治疗的患者，因为它消除了许多报道的治疗障碍。
