A rapid review of the effectiveness of remote consultations versus face-to-face consultations in secondary care surgical outpatient settings

1.1 Purpose of this review

Waiting times for elective treatments have increased since the emergence of COVID-19, as non-emergency treatments were suspended or delayed to focus on the pandemic response, creating a significant backlog for the National Health Service (NHS). As of February 2022, 6.18 million people were waiting for consultant led elective treatments to start in England, out of which 299,478 people have been on a waiting list for over a year, and 23,281 for over two years (Nuffield Trust 2022). In Wales, treatment waiting times follow a similar tendency, with 252,000 people waiting more than 36 weeks for treatment from referral (Welsh Government 2022).

To clear the backlog and reduce waiting times, new and innovative approaches are needed. There is some evidence from orthopaedic specialties and fracture clinics that telemedicine can free up time for healthcare professionals and enable medical staff to see more people, reducing waiting times (Jenkins & Halai 2021, Moisan et al. 2021). However, confidence in these findings is low or very low based on the quality of the studies (Jenkins & Halai 2021), thus more research might be required to see whether telemedicine can help decrease waiting times.

Moreover, uptake for telemedicine might be an issue, as in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic around 3.5% of outpatient appointments were provided via video or telephone UK-wide (Hutchings 2020). While at the start of the pandemic, the use of telemedicine approaches significantly increased (Gachabayov et al. 2022), with 35% of outpatient appointments conducted remotely in April 2020 UK-wide, following the easing of some pandemic restrictions, this percentage reduced to 25% in September 2020 (QualityWatch 2020). This indicates that in-person consultations might still be the preferred mode of healthcare provision. However, evidence suggests that some patients prefer telemedicine as the main source of care delivery (Technology Enabled Care Cymru 2021). Based on these changes in telemedicine provision brought on by the pandemic, the Welsh Government (2022a) has proposed an ambitious plan that aims for 35% of initial assessments, and 50% of follow-up appointments to be provided remotely. However, how telemedicine impacts the care given to patients, and the movement and management of patients through the outpatient cycle, particularly in a wide variety of surgical specialties is unclear.

Based on preliminary searches conducted for a rapid evidence summary, we found an umbrella review (Smith et al. 2021) and numerous systematic reviews investigating the use of telemedicine in surgical specialties as well as patient and/or provider satisfaction (Cabrera et al. 2020, Fahey et al. 2021, Gupta et al. 2021, Kolcun et al. 2020, Chaudhry et al. 2021, McMaster et al. 2021). However, in some of these systematic reviews the use of synchronous (video and telephone consultations) and asynchronous modalities (texting, e-mails, mobile applications, etc.) were often considered together, and separating their impact on outcomes was not possible (Smith et al. 2021). The umbrella review found that the most commonly reported outcome was patient satisfaction although this measure is not necessarily indicative of whether remote consultations and telemedicine was effective in improving clinical and patient reported outcomes (Smith et al. 2021). In addition, systematic reviews often included mixed populations of both adults and children, even though remote consultations for children can require a different approach, such as parents with young children having to describe symptoms in absence of physical examination (Tully et al. 2021). We also found missing or limited reporting of research conducted since the emergence of COVID-19 which would be particularly important as telemedicine use increased significantly during the pandemic. Across these reviews there is a plethora of information on usage, patient satisfaction but very little that has explored surgical outcomes. Therefore, this rapid review aims to investigate the effectiveness of remote consultations (video or telephone), particularly focusing on clinical, patient reported and safety outcomes, in adult secondary surgical outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.1 Overview of the Evidence Base

2.2 Effectiveness of Telemedicine

To explore whether telemedicine consultations were as effective as in-person appointments in surgical specialties, results from the included studies are summarised below, with findings from prospective and retrospective studies presented separately by surgical subspeciality.

3.1 Summary of the findings

Previous reviews (Petersen et al. 2021, Gupta et al. 2021, Kolcun et al. 2020, Fahey et al. 2021, McMaster et al. 2021, Chaudhry et al. 2021) and a review of systematic reviews (Smith et al. 2021) have explored the usage, effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of telemedicine across a variety of surgical specialities prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. These have demonstrated the feasibility of the use of telemedicine for perioperative and/or postoperative care for adults and paediatric undergoing a variety of surgical procedures and overall, patients are satisfied with telemedicine in surgical practice. High patient and provider satisfaction for the use of telemedicine across a range of surgical specialities has previously been reported and is comparable to satisfaction obtained from in-person consultations (Smith et al. 2021, Fahey et al. 2021, McMaster et al. 2021, Chaudhry et al. 2021). There is a lack of evidence however, from existing systematic reviews of telemedicine for adult patients that have focused solely on the effectiveness of telemedicine during, and post COVID-19. A scoping review that mapped the evidence for telemedicine in surgical settings for the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, reported a large increase in outpatient management (virtual clinics), new patient consultation, telesurgery use in education, followed by preoperative evaluation/triage (Gachabayov et al. 2022). However, in the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic a lack of intervention studies was noted, and effectiveness was not reported. Therefore, this rapid review sought to investigate the effectiveness of remote consultations (video or telephone), particularly focusing on clinical, patient reported and safety outcomes, in adult secondary surgical outpatient care during the two years of COVID-19 pandemic.

The findings of this rapid review are based on very limited low and very low quality evidence (as determined using the GRADE approach) from three prospective and 11 retrospective cohort studies. However, a number of included studies made definitive claims about the effectiveness of the telemedicine consultations in surgical specialties. So, the findings from the included prospective and retrospective studies should be interpreted with caution.

The surgical specialities that are covered include thyroid and parathyroid gastrointestinal, orthopaedic, spine or cancer related surgery, circumcision, carpal tunnel release and surgery for laryngology-related complaints. Ye et al. (2022) comments that spinal surgeons may not be able to give an accurate diagnosis and formulate the correct surgical plan during a pre-operative telemedicine consultation. However, findings from two retrospective studies conducted with spine patients (Lightsey et al. 2021, Ye et al. 2022) and one further study with orthopaedic patients that included 59 spine patients (Crawford et al. 2021) all found that the plans generated during telemedicine consultations were as accurate as surgical plans generated at in-person consultations. Ye et al. (2022) comments that this is a surprising result given the importance of a detailed physical examination in spine practice. For laryngology related complaints pre-operative telemedicine can be used to provide a preliminary diagnosis and management plan and appropriate triaging. Surgical plans generated for orthopaedic patients, thyroid and parathyroid surgery are rarely changed by in-person evaluation and day-of-surgery cancellation are similar regardless of the mode of consultation showing telemedicine to be a feasible alternative to in-person consultations. Due to the limitations related to the study methodologies used there is a need for RCTs to be conducted that take into account confounding factors.

Pre-operative consultations have the potential to reduce the length of time a patient is waiting for surgery. Time to surgery was investigated across two studies in this rapid review (Natale et al, 2022; Ye et al. 2022) and presented mixed findings but this was due to the inclusion of a historical control group (pre-COVID) in one of the studies (Ye et al. 2022) so similar comparisons could not be made. Further studies with concurrent cohorts are needed to investigate this outcome further.

Only one study reported on costs, specifically on the cost savings associated with telephone consultations. So, no firm conclusions can be reached on the cost effectiveness of telemedicine consultations that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Postoperative telemedicine consultations across a range of surgical procedures were found to be feasible with similar results reported across outcome measures compared to in-person consultations. However, across the included studies a patient’s eligibility for pre—operative or postoperative telemedicine was not always reported. Where this information was provided, telemedicine group allocation was either based on patients’ preference or surgeons’ clinical judgement. When clinical judgement for pre-operative patient selection was made then the patients who were deemed to be more complex or high-risk were excluded. There are also limitations across the studies where the patients could choose between in-person or telemedicine consult after surgery. This has the potential for bias, as patients who have easier access to technology or more confidence in using video or telephone applications might be favoured. Future studies should consider transparent reporting of telemedicine eligibility.

3.2 Limitations of the available evidence

The included studies had several limitations based on the methodological assessment. Two of the three prospective cohort studies (Boles et al. 2022, Irarrazaval et al. 2021) met seven criteria out of the 11 on the critical appraisal checklist. One further prospective cohort study scored six out of a potential nine criteria (Grandizio et al. 2022). Two questions were not applicable, as comparisons were not made between two populations (Q1, Q2), but between the same participant group receiving different interventions (telemedicine against face-to-face assessment) at different timepoints. In one study (Boles et al. 2022) the study groups in were not fully comparable at baseline (Q1) and for another study (Irarrazaval et al. 2021) it was unclear if the outcomes were measured in a valid and reliable way (Q7). None of the three prospective studies had sufficient strategies to deal with confounding factors (Q4) and had issues or a lack of information on whether follow-up of participants was complete (Q9) and strategies to deal with incomplete follow-up (Q10).

For the 11 retrospective cohort studies all the studies addressed an appropriate and clearly focused question (Q1.1), had clearly defined outcomes (Q1.7), reliable methods of assessment of exposure (Q1.10) and valid and reliable methods of outcome assessment (Q1.11). Out of six retrospective cohort studies, in which there were a comparison group, only one study (Henry et al. 2022) selected participant groups that were comparable in all aspects other than the factors under investigation (Q1.2). Only one retrospective cohort study (Choi et al. 2022) gave recognition that knowledge of exposure status could have influenced the assessment of outcome (Q1.9). While these are retrospective studies, and so neither the participants, nor the clinicians could have been blinded, methods to try and conceal group allocation from assessors could have been attempted, or bias arising from the assessors knowing allocation could have been disclosed. Only two studies (Natale et al 2022, Uppal et al. 2022) identified and accounted for potential confounders in the design and analysis (Q1.13). Fives studies provided confidence intervals (Q1.14) (Choi et al. 2022, Crawford et al. 2021, Lightsey et al. 2021, Natale et al. 2022, Uppal et al. 2022) and one further study provided confidence intervals for one of the outcomes but not for the others, so this had to be scored a ‘No’ (Raad et al. 2021). Overall, five of the retrospective cohort studies were rated as being of low quality reflecting that either most criteria were not met, or that there were significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design (Aldawoodi et al. 2021, Greven et al. 2022, Raad et al. 2021, Sibanda et al. 2021, Ye et al. 2022). This means that conclusions are likely to change in the light of further studies. A further six of the retrospective cohort studies were rated as being acceptable reflecting that most criteria were met and that there were some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias (Choi et al. 2022, Crawford et al. 2021, Henry et al. 2022, Lightsey et al. 2021, Natale et al. 2022, Uppal et al. 2022). This means that conclusions may change in the light of further studies.

The sample sizes across the telemedicine arms of the included studies ranged from 32 (Grandizio et al. 2022) to 109 (Uppal et al. 2022). Only one study conducted a sample size calculation (Grandizio et al. 2022). In the absence of sample size calculations there is a need to be cautious when interpreting findings from studies. Additionally, strong conclusions should not be drawn due to the small sample sizes which are unlikely to produce reliable results.

3.3 Implications for policy and practice

Practitioners should ensure all new telemedicine initiatives undergo thorough service evaluation to ensure they meet the needs of both the speciality and the patients including patient reported outcomes.

Policy makers should ensure that any recommendations for telemedicine take into account the need for all types of service users.

Further high-quality research studies that take into account confounding factors should be funded to determine both clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness

3.4 Strengths and limitations of this Rapid Review

The strength of this review is that a thorough search was undertaken by an information specialist across six electronic databases. Although this was a rapid review in which a number of the systematic review processes were streamlined, it should be noted that full-text screening, data extraction and critical appraisal of each study were undertaken by different reviewers but independently checked for accuracy and consistency by the same second reviewer, which is a strength of this work. Moreover, 20% of title and abstract screening conducted by one reviewer was checked by another reviewer to make sure that study selection was accurate and relevant records were identified.

Potential limitation of this rapid review is that even though, the accuracy of a portion of title and abstract screening was checked, it is possible that relevant records might have been missed in the group of records that was not double screened. In addition, due to time constraints of the rapid review process, extraction of some data had to be omitted, such as comorbidities. Therefore, it is possible that results are influenced by participants’ other health conditions. However, it must be noted that information on comorbidities were not available in all studies, thus extraction of this would not have been possible.

This rapid review was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, therefore it is possible that by including studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic might change the conclusions made in this report. However, this rapid review is reflective of the research conducted during the pandemic, and it could provide important insights into the use of telemedicine during a public health emergency. Moreover, this rapid review highlights gaps in the literature published since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a strength as it could help focus on areas where further high-quality research is needed.

Another limitation of this rapid review is the heterogeneity in the included studies, which is present in the different surgical specialties, various outcomes collected, and different video or telephone applications used for telemedicine. Therefore, pooling results to show whether telemedicine was effective was not possible. Furthermore, the methods to investigate the effectiveness of telemedicine consultations was varied. This variability could be noticed in the use of comparison groups, as while most of the included studies had two or more cohorts, a few only had one cohort and utilised within-subject research design. Moreover, many studies with two cohorts had pre-COVID in-person groups which makes direct comparison with studies using face-to-face controls recruited during COVID difficult.