No CrossRef data available.
Satisfaction Survey of Patients and Carers for Telephone vs Face-to-Face Reviews - a Service Evaluation Project
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated major changes in clinical care, including remote patient contact. Havering Older Adults Mental Health Team and Memory Service (HOAMHT&MS) patients often fell within the vulnerable category for poorer outcomes with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so remote contact was preferable during the pandemic. Telephone assessments were offered to replace face-to-face reviews for some patients. Feedback from patients and carers was collected to compare these modes of patient contact. Remote assessment has positive impacts including; improving access to care in remote areas/when local services cannot meet demand and for disabled patients. Understanding the patient experience about remote assessments helps navigate decisions about future modes of consultation.
Methods
This evaluation was organised in HOAMHT&MS. A Rio* diary search was conducted for practitioners from 15/07/2020 to 15/10/2020. 75 questionnaires were sent from each clinic (OAMHT and Memory Service). We sent an equal number of questionnaires for telephone appointments and face-to-face reviews. Questionnaires were posted to patients with pre-paid envelopes to return responses.
*Rio is our Electronic Patient Record System
Results
We had a total return of 23 questionnaires from the Memory Service and 24 from the OAMHT clinic. Most questions were a likert scale from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). The overall satisfaction score out of 5 (average of all the responses):
OAMHT:
Patient/telephone: 3.7 (n=13)
Patient/face-to-face: 4.1 (n=7)
Memory Service:
Carer/telephone: 4.4 (n=8)
Carer/face-to-face: 4.2 (n=9)
Some of the open ended feedback:
OAMHT:
• Carer/telephone:
“The telephone was rushed and at the end of the meeting the person wanted to sign my husband off.”
• Patient/face-to-face:
“Help was always there for me.”
“The clinic deserves a medal.”
Memory Service:
• Carer/telephone:
“Very helpful - I am now contacting them for further advice. They understand my stress and give me full support.“
• Patient/face-to-face:
“Very happy with the care and attention from the consultant, doctor and nurses at the memory service.”
Conclusion
OAMHT Responses:
• Face-to-face feedback more positive
• Patients experienced more distress - nature of illness (distress/crisis) compared to memory (usually gradual decline)
• Telephone appointments seem less satisfactory - less likely to meet the emotional need of patient/carer
Memory Service:
• Generally positive feedback from carers and patients in all areas - able to take a meaningful history over telephone
- Type
- Service Evaluation
- Information
- BJPsych Open , Volume 9 , Supplement S1: Abstracts from the RCPsych International Congress 2023, 10–13 July , July 2023 , pp. S140 - S141
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Footnotes
Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.
You have
Access
Open access
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.