Telehealth utilization and patient satisfaction in an ambulatory movement disorders center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Studies suggest that patients are satisfied with telehealth in ambulatory settings. However, tele-neurology satisfaction data are limited by a small sample size and COVID-19-era data is not specific to movement disorders clinics. In this prospective observational study, telehealth utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed, and patient satisfaction was compared between telehealth and in-person visits in an outpatient movement disorders center.
Methods: Patients ≥18 years who completed an appointment at Northwestern's Movement Disorders Clinic were invited to complete a post-visit Medallia survey. The primary outcomes of the survey were likelihood to recommend (LTR) provider, LTR location, and 'spent enough time,' on a 0-10 scale. Responses were categorized into in-person vs. telehealth groups.
Results: Telehealth utilization significantly increased from a pre-COVID timeframe rate of 0.3% (Nov 2019 to Feb 2020) to 39.5% during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 through April 2021) ( p -value < 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 621 patients responded to the post-visit Medallia survey (response rate = 30%), including 365 in-person and 256 telehealth visits. No significant differences were observed between in-person and telehealth encounters in LTR provider ( p  = 0.892), LTR location ( p  = 0.659), and time spent ( p  = 0.395). Additional subgroup multivariable analysis did not support differences in satisfaction between different age groups.
Discussion: With its large sample size, our study demonstrates that in the setting of increased TH utilization in movement disorders clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients reported similar satisfaction with telehealth compared to in-person visits. This study supports the utility of telehealth to provide specialized neurologic clinic care.
Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.