National Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual House Calls for People with Parkinson's Disease: Interest and Barriers.

BACKGROUND: Delivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Connect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study. RESULTS: During recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet.

Virtual visits for Parkinson disease: A multicenter noncontrolled cohort.

BACKGROUND: Previous small-scale studies have demonstrated the feasibility of providing remote specialty care via virtual visits. We assessed the feasibility and benefits of a one-time consultation between a remote Parkinson Disease (PD) specialist and an individual with PD at home on a larger scale. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noncontrolled cohort of virtual visits administered over videoconferencing between remote PD specialists and individuals with PD in their home. Specialists performed a patient history and a PD-specific physical examination and provided recommendations to patients and their local physicians. The primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion of visits completed as scheduled, and the 6-month change in quality of life, as measured by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39. Additional outcomes included satisfaction with visits and interest in future virtual visits. RESULTS: A total of 277 participants from 5 states enrolled, 258 participants completed virtual visits with 14 different physicians, and 91% of visits were completed as scheduled. No improvement in quality of life was observed at 6 months (0.4-point improvement; 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.6; p = 0.39). Overall satisfaction with virtual visits was high among physicians (94% satisfied or very satisfied) and patients (94% satisfied or very satisfied), and 74% of participants were interested in receiving future care via virtual visits. CONCLUSIONS: Providing specialty care remotely into the homes of individuals with PD is feasible, but a one-time visit did not improve quality of life. Satisfaction with the visits was high among physicians and patients, who were interested in receiving such care in the future. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with PD, remote specialty care is feasible but does not improve quality of life. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02144220.

National randomized controlled trial of virtual house calls for Parkinson disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable. METHODS: In a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings. RESULTS: A total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02038959. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.