Quality in Clinical Consultations: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Prior research has shown that face-to-face interactions in clinical settings often lead to higher patient satisfaction. However, the impact of telemedicine on consultation quality remains unclear. This gap motivated an investigation into how consultation methods affect quality indicators. Established knowledge includes the importance of communication in healthcare outcomes. No prior work had resolved whether telemedicine compromises consultation quality. The pandemic introduced new variables into clinical practice. Researchers needed to assess whether telemedicine adoption altered consultation quality. This study aimed to address that uncertainty by evaluating quality indicators before and during the pandemic.

The study aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical consultations using 10 predefined indicators. It sought to determine if telemedicine adoption during the pandemic affected consultation quality. Researchers wanted to assess if consultation quality correlates with patient and clinician satisfaction. The objective was to compare face-to-face and telemedicine consultations systematically. The study also aimed to examine if consultation quality influences clinical decision-making. No prior work had directly linked consultation quality to definitive consultation outcomes. The researchers focused on measuring satisfaction and outcome decisions. This approach allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of consultation effectiveness.

A cross-sectional study design was employed to collect data from clinicians and patients. Surveys were administered after outpatient consultations between February and March 2021. The consultation quality score was calculated by summing 'yes' responses to 10 survey questions. Both patients and clinicians were asked to rate the consultations. A total of 538 consultations were assessed by either patients or clinicians. Response rates were 60% for patients and 42% for clinicians. The study compared face-to-face and telephone consultations. Statistical analysis included log-odds ratios to evaluate associations with satisfaction and outcomes.

Face-to-face consultations had a higher consultation quality score than telephone consultations. Clinicians and patients reported significantly lower scores for telemedicine consultations. Higher consultation quality scores were linked to greater patient satisfaction. The log-odds ratio for clinician satisfaction was 0.77 (p = 0.004). For patients, the log-odds ratio was 1.35 (p < 0.001). Consultation quality also correlated with definitive consultation outcomes. The log-odds ratio for definitive outcomes was 0.44 (p = 0.03). These findings suggest a strong relationship between consultation quality and patient and clinician satisfaction.

The study found that consultation quality can be measured using standardized indicators. The shift to telemedicine during the pandemic appears to have reduced consultation quality. Higher consultation quality scores were associated with greater satisfaction from both patients and clinicians. The results suggest a link between consultation quality and definitive clinical decisions. The authors propose that telemedicine may not fully replicate the quality of in-person interactions. These findings support the need for further research on telemedicine effectiveness. The study does not claim that telemedicine is ineffective but highlights a measurable quality difference. The authors suggest that consultation quality should be monitored as a key performance indicator.