Appropriateness of Self-Scheduled Office Visits in Outpatient Hand Surgery.

PURPOSE: Our practice recently implemented a system that enables patients to self-schedule outpatient visits through an online portal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of self-scheduled appointments in the Hand and Wrist Surgery Division of our practice. METHODS: Outpatient visit notes from 128 new patient visits among 18 fellowship-trained hand and upper extremity surgeons were collected; 64 visits were self-scheduled online, and 64 were scheduled using the traditional call center system. The notes were deidentified and divided among 10 hand and upper extremity surgeons, such that each note was reviewed by two different reviewers. The surgeons scored each visit on a scale of 1-10, with 1 representing a completely inappropriate visit for a hand surgeon and 10 representing a completely appropriate visit. Primary diagnoses and treatment plans were recorded, including whether surgery was planned during the visit. The final score for each visit resulted from the average of the two separate scores. The average appropriateness score for all self-scheduled visits was compared with the average score for all traditionally scheduled visits with a two-sample t test. RESULTS: The average appropriateness score for self-scheduled visits was 8.4 of 10, with seven visits resulting in a planned surgery (10.9%). Traditionally scheduled visits had an average appropriateness score of 8.4 of 10, with eight visits resulting in a planned surgery (12.5%). The average difference in the scores between reviewers for all visits was 1.7. CONCLUSIONS: In our practice, the appropriateness of visits that are self-scheduled is nearly identical to the appropriateness of traditionally scheduled visits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Implementation of self-scheduling systems may allow for greater patient autonomy and access to care and reduce administrative burden on office staff.

An Evaluation of the Source and Content of Dupuytren's Disease Information Available on the Internet.

Introduction The internet continues to expand in both size and number of users, and patients are using the internet with increasing frequency to research orthopedic conditions and treatment options. Despite the prevalence of patients searching for medical information, the quality of the available information varies substantially. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and accuracy of the information available on the internet for Dupuytren's disease. We hypothesized that the informational content found on the internet regarding this condition would be of acceptable quality. Methods The search phrasing "'Dupuytren' OR 'Dupuytren's'" was used to mimic how patients would likely search for information on the disease. These terms were entered into the five English-language search engines with the most frequent use on the internet. On each search engine, the first 50 URLs were recorded, including sponsored sites. The 250 total sites were filtered to remove duplicate sites and URLs linking to other search engines, resulting in a final list of 84 websites for informational scoring. A previously published information evaluation protocol was used to grade each website. Each site was graded according to these guidelines by two authors and scored based on authorship, content, disease summary, treatment options, pathogenesis, complications, and results. A third author resolved any conflict on authorship or content before analysis. The resultant "informational value" is the sum of the disease summary, treatment options, pathogenesis, complications, and results and can range from 0-100.  Results The mean total information score for all sites was 47.5 out of 100 points. Forty-three (51.2%) of the websites evaluated were authored by a physician or academic institution, and thirty-four (40.5%) of the sites were commercial in nature. The final seven websites (8.3%) had nonphysician, unidentified, or lay authorship. Physician and academic institution authored websites had an average informational score of 55.5 out of 100 points, compared to 39.7 out of 100 for all other websites. This difference was statistically significant (p <0.01). The mean informational score for the 10 sponsored websites was 16.4 out of 100. Conclusion We concluded that internet information on Dupuytren's disease is of poor quality and incomplete. Academic and physician authored sites have higher quality than commercial sites, but significant room for improvement still exists. Patients should be advised to identify the authorship of the websites they obtain information from and avoid advertisements and commercial sites.