Patient Views on Telemedicine for Parkinson Disease.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is increasingly used for Parkinson disease, but the perspectives of persons with Parkinson disease have not been systematically assessed. METHODS: We therefore conducted a national online survey, and 781 individuals with Parkinson disease responded. RESULTS: Of these, 76% indicated high interest, and 29% reported prior telemedicine experience. The top advantages included access to specialists (62%), convenience (60%), and time savings (59%). The most common disadvantages were the lack of hands-on care (69%), lack of intimacy (43%), and technical difficulties (37%). CONCLUSIONS: In this non-representative sample, interest in telemedicine was high but tempered by the concern for loss of high touch care.

Telemedicine for Parkinson's Disease: Limited Engagement Between Local Clinicians and Remote Specialists.

INTRODUCTION: The integration of remote specialists into local care teams has not been widely evaluated. METHODS: Therefore, we surveyed clinicians whose patients with Parkinson's disease had participated in a national randomized controlled trial of video visits to determine (1) whether clinicians received recommendations from remote specialists; (2) whether those recommendations were implemented; (3) what barriers to specialty care local clinicians perceived; and (4) whether they would recommend video visits. RESULTS: Of 183 clinicians surveyed, 89 (49%) responded. Less than half received the recommendations of remote specialists, but they implemented most of the recommendations they received and found them to be beneficial. CONCLUSION: The greatest perceived barrier among respondents was distance from patient to specialist, and 40% of local clinicians would recommend video visits. As telemedicine grows, improved communication between remote specialists and local clinicians is likely needed.

Patient and Physician Perceptions of Virtual Visits for Parkinson's Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Background and Introduction: Delivering care through telemedicine directly into the patient's home is increasingly feasible, valuable, and beneficial. However, qualitative data on how patients' and physicians' perceive these virtual house calls are lacking. We conducted a qualitative analysis of perceptions of these visits for Parkinson's disease to (1) determine how patients and physicians perceive virtual visits and (2) identify components contributing to positive and negative perceptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative survey data were collected from patients and physicians during a 12-month randomized controlled trial of virtual house calls for Parkinson's disease. Data from 149 cases were analyzed using case-based qualitative content analysis and quantitative sentiment analysis techniques. RESULTS: Positive and negative perceptions of virtual visits were driven by three themes: (1) personal benefits of the virtual visit, (2) perceived quality of care, and (3) perceived quality of interpersonal engagement. In general, participants who identified greater personal benefit, high quality of care, and good interpersonal engagement perceived visits positively. Technical problems with the software were commonly mentioned. The sentiment analysis for patients was strongly favorable (+2.5) and moderately favorable for physicians (+0.8). Physician scores were lowest (-0.3) for the ability to perform a detailed motor examination remotely. DISCUSSION: Patients and providers generally view telemedicine favorably, but individual experiences are dependent on technical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with and effectiveness of remote care will likely increase as common technical problems are resolved.

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.

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 house calls for Parkinson disease (Connect.Parkinson): study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Interest in improving care for the growing number of individuals with chronic conditions is rising. However, access to care is limited by distance, disability, and distribution of doctors. Small-scale studies in Parkinson disease, a prototypical chronic condition, have suggested that delivering care using video house calls is feasible, offers similar clinical outcomes to in-person care, and reduces travel burden. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a randomized comparative effectiveness study (Connect.Parkinson) comparing usual care in the community to usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson disease specialist. Recruitment is completed centrally using online advertisements and emails and by contacting physicians, support groups, and allied health professionals. Efforts target areas with a high proportion of individuals not receiving care from neurologists. Approximately 200 individuals with Parkinson disease and their care partners will be enrolled at 20 centers throughout the United States and followed for one year. Participants receive educational materials, then are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to continue their usual care (control arm) or usual care and specialty care delivered virtually (intervention arm). Care partners are surveyed about their time and travel burden and their perceived caregiver burden. Participants are evaluated via electronic survey forms and videoconferencing with a blinded independent rater at baseline and at 12 months. All study activities are completed remotely.The primary outcomes are: (1) feasibility, as measured by the proportion of visits completed, and (2) quality of life, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical benefit, quality of care, time and travel burden, and caregiver burden. DISCUSSION: Connect.Parkinson will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using technology to deliver care into the homes of individuals with Parkinson disease. The trial may serve as a model for increasing access and delivering patient-centered care at home for individuals with chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on January 8, 2014 [NCT02038959].