| Autor: |
Murray MA; Mayo Clinic Express Care, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.; Department of Family Medicine, Employee and Community Health, Rochester, Minnesota, USA., Penza KL; Mayo Clinic Express Care, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.; Department of Family Medicine, Employee and Community Health, Rochester, Minnesota, USA., Furst JW; Department of Family Medicine, Employee and Community Health, Rochester, Minnesota, USA., Pecina JL; Department of Family Medicine, Employee and Community Health, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Objective: Compare demographics, treatment, and follow-up rates for patients with complaints of vulvovaginitis suggestive of candida infection evaluated via e-visit, face-to-face (F2F) visits, or nurse-administered phone protocol. Methods: Manual review of 150 vaginitis visits of each visit type (e-visit, F2F, and phone protocol) completed between May 5, 2018 through January 31, 2020 by Mayo Clinic patients residing in Minnesota. Outcomes: Comparison between the three visit types of patient characteristics, treatment rates, type of treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up. Results: Patients utilizing phone visits were significantly older than those seeking care via e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or F2F ( p = 0.001) and were more likely to be treated with oral fluconazole than those treated by e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or F2F ( p < 0.0001) encounters. Patients were significantly less likely to receive fungal directed treatment at a F2F visit than an e-visit ( p < 0.0001) or phone encounter ( p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in follow-up rates between the three groups. Conclusion: Virtual visits (non-F2F) for suspected vulvovaginal candidiasis are unlikely to result in more follow-up visits than F2F encounters; however, prescriptions for antifungals are significantly higher with virtual visits. |
