Comparison of Virtual Management of Vulvovaginal Candidiasis to Traditional In-Person Care

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. 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. Comparison between the three visit types of patient characteristics, treatment rates, type of treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up. 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. 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.