Optimizing Telemedicine Technologic Infrastructure with Animal Models: A Case in Telecystoscopy.

Background: Rapid evolution of telemedicine technology requires procedures in telemedicine to adapt frequently. An example in urology, telecystoscopy, allows certified advanced practice providers to perform cystoscopy, endoscopic examination of the bladder, in rural areas with real-time interpretation and guidance by an off-site urologist. We have previously shown the technological infrastructure for optimized video quality. Introduction: Newer models of cystoscope and coder/decoder (codec) are available with anticipation that components used in our original model will become unavailable. Our objective is to assess the diagnostic ability of two cystoscopes (Storz, Wolf) with old (SX20) and new (DX70) codecs. Materials and Methods: A single urologist performed flexible cystoscopy on an ex vivo porcine bladder. Combinations of cystoscope (Storz vs. Wolf), codec (SX20 vs. DX70), and internet transmission speed were used to create eight distinct recordings. Deidentified videos were reviewed by expert urologist reviewers via electronic survey with questions on video quality and diagnostic ability. A logistic regression model was used to assess the ability to make a diagnosis. Results: Eight transmitted cystoscopy videos were reviewed by 16 urologists. Despite new technology, the Storz cystoscope combined with the SX20 codec (the original combination) provides the best diagnostic capacity. Discussion: Technical infrastructure must be routinely validated to assess the component impact on overall quality because newer is not always better. Should the SX20 become obsolete, ex vivo animal models are safe, inexpensive anatomic models for testing. Conclusions: As technology continues to evolve, procedures in telemedicine must critically scrutinize the impact of new technologic components to uphold quality.

Are telephone consultations the future of the NHS? The outcomes and experiences of an NHS urological service in moving to telemedicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate urology patient satisfaction with telephone consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All patients who received a telephone appointment in a 1-month period were invited to complete a questionnaire. An adaption of the Telehealth Satisfaction Scale (TeSS) was used. Patient responses were compared based on type of clinic, age and gender. RESULTS: 119 questionnaires were completed. The majority of responses to the adapted TeSS (Q1-7) were graded as 'Excellent', ranging from 79 (66%) to 112 (94%). 'Agree' responses ranged from 92 (77%) to 117 (98%) for questions (Q8-12), indicating high satisfaction. Patients consulted in post radical prostatectomy and PSA surveillance clinics gave a significantly greater number of 'Excellent' or 'Agree' responses. Older age was associated with a significantly greater number of 'Agree' responses to one item only. Responses were not affected by gender. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates high overall satisfaction with the use of telephone consultations among urology patients. For some patients, telephone consultations are more suitable and may be utilised more frequently in the future. However, it is clear that in selected cases face-to-face consultations are required for safe, comprehensive clinical assessment.

Benefits and barriers to pediatric tele-urology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine video visits are an under-utilized form of delivering health care. However due to the COVID-19 pandemic, practices are rapidly adapting telemedicine for patient care. We describe our experience in rapidly introducing video visits in a tertiary academic pediatric urology practice, serving primarily rural patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess visit success rate and identify barriers to completing video visits. The secondary aim identified types of pathologies feasible for video visits and travel time saved. We hypothesize socioeconomic status is a predictor of a successful visit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was prospectively collected and analyzed on video visits focusing on visit success, defined by satisfactory completion of the visit as assessed by the provider. Other variables collected included duration, video platform and technical problems. Retrospective data was collected via chart review and analyzed including demographics, insurance, and distance to care. Socioeconomic status was estimated using the Distressed Communities Index generated for patient zip code. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Out of 116 attempted visits, 81% were successful. The top two reasons for failure were "no-show" (64%) and inability to connect (14%). Success versus failure of visit was similar for patient age (p = 0.23), sex (p = 0.42), type of visit (initial vs. established) (p = 0.51), and socioeconomic status (p = 0.39). After adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and type of provider, having public insurance remained a significant predictor of failure (p = 0.017). Successful visits were conducted on multiple common pediatric urologic problems (excluding visits requiring palpation on exam), and video was sufficient for physical exams in most cases (Summary Table). A median of 2.25 h of travel time was saved. CONCLUSIONS: While socioeconomic status, estimated using the Distressed Communities Index, did not predict success of video visits, patients with public insurance were more likely to have a failed video visit. There is compelling evidence that effective video visits for certain pathologies can be rapidly achieved in a pediatric urology practice with minimal preparation time.