Exploring patient experiences of video consultations during Covid-19 in an outpatient care setting using routine feedback data from 955 contacts

Design

Secondary analysis of routinely collected anonymised patient responses to a post-VC survey designed and distributed by the partner health care provider (Trust).

Setting

Outpatient care in a rural area in Southwest England with older population, during the early implementation of VCs in response to COVID-19 (June 1^st – July 31^st 2020). The implementation process followed guidance provided by NHS England and NHS Improvement (19). The outpatient setting provides services across adult mental health, children’s and adolescent mental health and physical health, including but not limited to; learning disabilities, cardiac services, bladder and bowel, complex care and dementia, eating disorders, personality disorders, psychiatric liaison, palliative care, stroke nursing, speech and language therapy, diabetes, epilepsy, minor injuries, musculoskeletal, neuro-rehabilitation, physiotherapy, podiatry and respiratory nursing.

The Trust started to use Attend Anywhere from 6^th April 2020. Some appointments were still carried out face-to-face but many patients were offered video-consultation or telephone contact during the study period. There were 4234 completed Attend Anywhere appointments between 1^st June 2020 and 31^st July 2020. The patient feedback data used in this study was from 955 out of the 4234 completed video-consultations.

Participants

All patients were invited immediately after receiving a VC to complete an online survey. Participation was voluntary and participants were either patients or their carers. Survey respondents gave consent for their data to be used but some chose to not have comments quoted verbatim.

Data Collection

Data were collected by the Trust using an online survey. The survey (appendix A) was developed by the Trust based on the standardised patient feedback survey questions provided in the national guidance (19). To our knowledge, the survey was not designed with patient or public involvement due to the rapid implementation process. The rapid rollout of this feedback process may also be responsible for some limitations of the survey itself, including limitations in response options (for example the slightly odd age groups used) and understanding of the sample (for example, number of unique individuals and service accessed by patient). However, we have confidence that the data items we have used in our analysis are robust.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics are reported for numerical data. Free-text responses were analysed by three researchers using inductive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (20). A comprehensive coding framework was developed by the authors by reviewing survey responses on a line by line basis comparing initial thoughts, ideas and theme definitions. The resulting framework was then used to individually analyse survey responses comparing emerging themes across the data set to determine dominant themes. Thematic analysis was selected for the purposes of this research as it is advocated as a useful and flexible method to generate a rich, yet detailed and complex account of qualitative data (20). Adopting an inductive approach also helped to ensure identified themes arose from the data generated, as opposed to predefined concepts or ideas. Data saturation was defined as the point at which no new generic themes or variations of a given theme emerged (21). Qualitative analysis was supported through the use of NVIVO software.

Patient and public involvement

This study focuses on patient experiences of video consultations. The research question and study has therefore been informed by patient input including analysis of data, reviewing and co-authoring of the manuscript. Findings from this research have also been presented in partnership with a service-user consultant at an Experiences of Care Collaborative (ECCo) meeting within the Trust and other, more external facing co-designed dissemination activities. The service-user consultant will be instrumental in shaping and implementing some of the suggested solutions helping to ensure continued involvement.

Ethics

Ethical approval to conduct this secondary analysis and complete further primary data collection was attained from the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW), IRAS ID 286543.

This manuscript has been prepared using SQUIRE reporting guidelines (22).

Patient age and device use

Just under a quarter (955, 22.6%) of 4234 patient VCs resulted in feedback responses. As the data are anonymous it was not possible to know if some individuals had completed the survey more than once in this two month period. Our data are therefore episodes rather than individuals. The highest number of responses was received from the 31-50 year age group (n=333, 34.8%). The lowest number of responses was received from patients aged over 71 (n=58, 6.1%).

Half the patients used a laptop to access their VC (n=487, 50.9%). Device use varied by age (χ²= 68.9; 12df; p<.001). People aged over 50 were much less likely to use mobiles and more likely to use tablets. The 51-71 age group were more likely to use ‘other’ (probably desk top computers).

Overall experience and future intention

Most (n=890, 93.2%) patients reported having a ‘good’ (n=210, 22.0%), or ‘very good’ (n=680, 71.2%) overall experience of VC. A small number of respondents had a ‘poor’ (n=13, 1.4%), or ‘very poor’ experience (n=17, 1.8%). Future intention is also a measure of satisfaction with VC; nine out of ten respondents were ‘very likely’ (n=704, 73.7%) or ‘somewhat likely’ (n=176, 18.4%) to choose a VC in the future. Very few respondents (n=28, 2.9%) suggested they were ‘somewhat unlikely’ (n=17, 1.8%) or ‘very unlikely’ (n=11, 1.2%) to use VCs in the future. We are able to look at two aspects of overall satisfaction: satisfaction with the technology (video and sound) and satisfaction with the communication (more related to the clinician’s performance in this situation).

Technical satisfaction

Three-quarters of patients had a ‘very positive’ experience of sound and video quality (n=732, 76.6%, n=728, 76.2% respectively). When combined 67.6% (646) had a very positive experience of both video and sound (Table 2).

Satisfaction with communication

The vast majority of patients felt they had been listened to and understood (n=904, 94.7%); had had their needs met (n=860, 90.1%) and felt they had been able to communicate everything they wanted, although to a slightly lesser extent (n=848, 88.8%). Overall 85.7% (818) rated all three aspects positively (Table 2).

Association between satisfaction with technology and communication

Satisfaction with communication was very strongly associated with satisfaction with the technical performance (χ²=104.0; df=1; p<0.001) (Table 3). Only 41/955 people were less satisfied with the communication despite being satisfied with the technology. On the other hand, 213/955 remained positive about the communication despite being less positive about the technology.

Influence of age and device on outcome

Age was significantly associated with satisfaction with the technical experience, though interestingly satisfaction with audio and video was lowest in the under 30s and highest in the over 71s (Table 2). On the other hand older people were more likely to use laptops and ‘other’ (Table 1) while mobile and tablet users had better technical experience (Table 2). This seemed rather contradictory indicating some interaction between age and device, so we explored this further (Appendix B). People aged 30 and under were less likely to be positive about the technical experience, particularly those that used tablets. Those in the 31-71 age groups who used laptops or ‘other’ were less likely to be positive about the technology. The over 71s were more positive about the technology performance.

Independence and accessibility

Most (806, 84.4%) respondents stated that they could access their VC alone. However, more respondents over the age of 71 reported needing help (n=35/58, 60.3%) than those who could access their VC alone (n=23/58, 39.7%). This was the only age group to report such results, with most patients in other age groups able to access the VC alone (range 79.8%-95.2%).

Ease of joining

Most participants reported that it was ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’ to join the VC call (n=849, 88.9%), but this was strongly associated with age with 92.6% (286) of those under 31 reducing to 69.0% (40) of the over 71s (χ²=28.6, 3df, p<0.001).

Perceived savings

Two thirds of patients reported a perceived saving in time (n=662, 69.3%) and more than half saving money (n=544, 59.9%). There was no difference by age.

Technology

Many participants identified concerns of connectivity, “platform glitches” (unique identifier, P94) or experienced delays between video and sound. For example, “the picture kept freezing and pixelating” (P741); “the video quality is so poor it’s really hard to get much done” (P332). Similarly, “the connection was awful and so did not work for speech therapy” (P888). Experiences of “platform glitches” appeared to have important implications for the perceived quality of consultations. In some cases, technical difficulties meant patients felt that their “needs were not met” (P305), i.e. “couldn’t continue the call due to technical issues” (P663).

Quality of Patient Information and Support

The quality of patient information, particularly joining instructions was also repeatedly called into question by survey respondents. One participant described the joining process as “stupidly complex” (P52). Others described being “directed to a troubleshooting, jargon filled, suggestions page” (P95). The complexity of language used in these documents was described by the same participant as not “good enough” (P95).

The accuracy of joining instructions was also questioned by some participants; “the link doesn’t open as the instructions [suggest]” (P236). Similarly, “the link […] sent in the instructions did not work” (P863). Although a video version of the information was provided, this was described by participants as in need of further development and refinement to ensure inclusivity, particularly for “deaf patients” (P582).

Furthermore, some participants reported admin or clinician errors. Although seemingly rare, such errors often impaired patient access and subsequent experience. For example, “no link [was] sent” (P12); “was not able to join […] not sure which link” (P215), there was “a mix up with admin about time of appointment” (P12). One participant appeared to receive no answer - “unfortunately there was no answer after an hour…pleased this waiting time was at home and didn’t involve a wasted journey” (P573).

Accessibility

Access to relevant devices, browsers, digital skills and/or confidence were also described as problematic by some participants. For example, “unfortunately I was not up to date with technology” (P319). Some participants reported needing to download alterative browsers or borrow other people’s devices due to “outdated” (P671) models. Similar to the quantitative findings presented above, some participants reported needing help from family members or friends to support their VC use. Such support appeared to be vital “without [them] it would have been impossible” (P540). Another “96 year old had to pay for a carer to be present [and] 2 hours of IT help from someone else” (P47).

Suitability concerns

Some participants suggested face-to-face appointments may be better suited for certain individuals or conditions. For example, individuals who rely on lip reading suggested that “face to face is easier” (P457) due to encountered video and sound delays. Character limitations in the VC chat function was also reported as unhelpful by some participants. Finally, some patients suggested that physical, or mobility examinations may be better suited for face-to-face consultations, although this conclusion was not unanimous. Further exploration of which settings and conditions VCs may be most acceptable and appropriate for could be beneficial.

Interestingly no participants described the therapeutic relationship or quality of care delivered by individual healthcare professionals as a barrier or limitation of VC use. This may reflect the questions asked in the survey but is an interesting point to consider.

Less stressful and anxious experience

Other benefits frequently described by participants included a less anxious and “far less stressful” (P796) experience. Several participants reported feeling “more relaxed” (P563) and less “rushed” (P392) as a result of avoiding certain stressors including arranging transport, arriving on time, finding and paying for parking and avoiding traffic. A reduction in anxiety and stress was also reported among children, particularly for children who experienced anxiety about appointments or leaving the house.

Enhanced comfort and ability to disclose personal/clinically relevant information

Some participants suggested that the removal of “so much stress” (P290) meant that they had “more time to focus on what needs [needed] talking through” (P290). Several participants suggested that because they “didn’t feel so stressed” (P695) and were in the comfort of their “own home” (P564), they were “able to open up more” (P695) often feeling more “comfortable” and “relaxed” (P564).

Personal savings

Other benefits described by participants included time, monetary and environmental savings. Some patients reported saving “over £20 in transportation costs” (P98), others reported “this has been a crucial saving, not only in time and money but also stress, as I would have had to rely on public transport […] around 5 hours [of] travel” (P895). Perceptions of now being able to ‘afford’ an appointment as a result of these time and cost savings were repeatedly referred to by some participants. For example, video consultations “have genuinely changed my life, […] being accessible for my needs and being able to afford an appointment” (P153). Travel and cost savings may be particularly prevalent in “Cornwall” where it “is always difficult to travel for appointments” (P262).

Enhanced accessibility

Although some individuals described reduced accessibility as previously described, the majority of free text responses suggested VCs facilitated service accessibility in a number ways. Firstly, due to certain conditions and reduced mobility, some respondents found “trips to the hospital very tiring and difficult” (P20). VCs removed this experience for a number of respondents. Childcare and employment cost savings were also described by participants when talking about enhanced accessibility. For example, one participant suggested that if relying on a face-to-face appointment they “would have been dragging all three kids along for what ended up being something that the video call was able to address” (P863). The “option of video call” was also considered “useful” for those who are employed or “working parents” (P335). Some respondents reported now being able to schedule weekly appointments around their employment, an option that was not always possible when relying on face-to-face appointments alone. Furthermore, a number of patients who are “not able to drive” or “can’t drive” described VCs as “much more convenient” (P307, P846, P307) due to enhanced independence and removal of reliance on others.

Due to the benefits encountered, numerous participants expressed a strong desire for VCs to be made available beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: “I […] hope that all of our future appointments will be held this way” (P863) highlighting an important element of patient choice.

Summary of findings

The vast majority of participants rated their experiences of VCs as ‘good’ or ‘very good,’ reported feeling listened to and understood, felt able to communicate everything they wanted to and felt that their needs had been met. Many reported saving time and money and over 90% would likely choose a VC again in the future although it remains unclear whether this is as a result of no perceived ‘alternative’ option due to the global pandemic or positive patient experiences. Further exploration of this finding would be beneficial including the exploration of patient experience over time. Nevertheless, this Trust and others should consider making VC a permanent option of their provision and not just for the duration of the pandemic.

Questions often raised about video consultations are that it loses the personal touch, that being on screen means a loss of non-verbal communication, and that as a result the consultation may not be as effective (23). This did not seem to be the case for most patients responding to this feedback form. This routine feedback form asked questions about technical aspects and about the interaction with the clinician. Those patients who had a good technical experience also had a good overall experience; communication with the clinician did not seem to be a concern.

The Trust of course needs to ensure equity of access and most raise concerns about the barriers for older people. Patients aged 71 or over were the only age group where a larger percentage of respondents reported needing support in accessing their VC than those who access it alone. Nevertheless, there was no clear age gradient in satisfaction with VC. Indeed, older people were more likely to be positive about the technology than younger people. This may reflect higher expectations among younger people. While high levels of positive experience were reported across all device types, more users of tablet or mobile devices were positive. The relationship between age, device use, and positive experience of VC is complex. We know that for older adults, the small size of mobile phones can pose a barrier to use, coupled with declining dexterity and vision, mobiles are mainly used by older adults for calls and texting (24), while tablet computers are increasing in popularity for online access among older people (25). We also know that people in the older working age groups may be more likely to be prefer the technologies they are or were familiar with at work (often desktops with poor cameras and sound systems), while older people new to computing use tablets as their ‘entry’ device (26).

Barriers described by participants included technological difficulties, quality of patient information, administrative errors and accessibility or suitability concerns. For example, connectivity concerns and a delay between video and sound were repeatedly identified by participants. Similarly, the complexity and use of jargon in patient facing information was repeatedly called into question by participants. Although converted into a video, patient information was considered to be in need of further development and refinement to ensure inclusivity, particularly for people in the deaf community. Conversely, identified benefits included reduced stress and anxiety, the opportunity to ‘open up more’ as a result of enhanced comfort, cost and time savings, increased sense of affordability and service accessibility. Finally, participants suggested a number of improvements such as the simplification of patient information including device recommendations and suggestions, ability to turn off the waiting room music and opportunities to have a ‘practice run’ through to increase familiarity.

Comparison with existing literature

Generally, our results continue to demonstrate general positive experiences for patients receiving VC’s during the pandemic (4, 9, 10). Congruent with Gilbert et al. (4) (feedback following VC also conducted during Covid-19), we found positively perceived aspects of VCs included reduced travel times and reduced impact of travel on symptom severity such as fatigue (4). Other similarities with Gilbert et al. (4) include the disruptive impact of video and sound quality and low confidence reported among some participants (4). This also echoes results of Isautier et al. (9), with technology limitations being a reason for poor experience. Our results indicating age differences in independent use and family involvement are also congruent with other research (27). However, given the difficulties that many older people have in travelling to outpatient clinics (28) and the high acceptability of VC in our study for older people no quick assumptions should be made about the unsuitability of VC for older people. Our participants reported higher levels of satisfaction and willingness to use VCs in the future than those in previous work (4). The previous feedback was collected within an entirely orthopaedic service, which could suggest greater satisfaction and use intentions are seen here due to the variety of services included, which may better translate to VC than orthopaedics, as perhaps a more ‘hands-on’ service. However, this would need further exploration, as survey limitations impair our understanding of exactly which service our participants accessed. Other contributions of this research include the identification of additional benefits including enhanced comfort and subsequent ability to ‘open up more’, increased sense of affordability and accessibility and difficulties faced as a result of perceived inadequacy with existing patient information. Furthermore, the research by Gilbert et al. (4) had a smaller sample size, collected from an orthopaedic service in an urban area, differing from the rural and aging setting in our work (17, 18). Isautier et al. (9) also had a smaller number of VC responses, collected from a general survey rather than directly following a VC, with Kayser et al. (10) also reporting on a small sample size, with limited patient experience information and single centre focus (lung transplant patients). In contrast to Isautier et al. (9) suggesting telehealth limitations included poorer quality of communication, our results suggested the large majority of patients were satisfied with the VC aspects related to communication, with combined technical satisfaction being lower, congruent with Kayser et al (10). Here, we additionally provide further insight into the influence of patient age and device used in predicting overall VC experience, with implications for targeted consultations in future.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this research include the exploration of a relatively large data set of patient experiences from an outpatient setting during the early stages of VC implementation. Unlike existing literature, this research explores the use of VCs in both physical and mental health services, helping to address limitations within existing COVID-response literature (4, 10). However, the limitations of this research must also be acknowledged. Firstly, the main limitation is that it is a self-selected sample of individuals who have attended a VC and chosen to provide feedback. Experiences or barriers for individuals who have not been able to, or chosen not to use VCs currently remain unknown, as do the experiences of those who chose not to provide feedback following their VC. Nevertheless, we know that many hundreds of patients have had a positive experience of VC. Secondly, due to the anonymous nature of the data set, we were unable to identify how many individuals completed the survey on more than one occasion. Thirdly, this research relies on secondary data and the subsequent questions/scales used by the Trust. While informed by the “One week implementation guide for NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts” provided by NHS England and NHS Improvement (19), the survey has some limitations, and to the researchers’ knowledge, the survey was not created in co-design with all relevant stakeholders including patients and carers. The questions asked may not therefore reflect the most important aspects of VC experience from a patient perspective. Finally, this research explores patient perceptions of VC use, staff experiences also needs to be explored and compared to identify areas of similarities and divergence, and best support sustainment for all stakeholders.

Implications for practice and policy makers

Our study identified a number of practical implications. Patient suggested solutions include: providing practice run-throughs to increase confidence and limit set-up time during the consultation, facilitating the ability to turn off waiting room music, notifications when appointments are running late and providing community kiosks, which could all be explored and implemented where possible. Other suggested platform improvements include the ability to upload photos or videos to the appointment, swap between cameras used, extend the capabilities of Attend Anywhere to other internet browsers and expand the character restrictions of the text chat function, which may be particularly important for accessibility for deaf patients. Routinely collecting and responding to patient feedback in near real time is likely to be an integral aspect of identifying potential solutions and celebrating areas of best practice.

Efforts should also be made to simplify and improve patient information, highlighted as a key barrier. This may best be achieved in co-design with patients. While the implementation of VCs was a rapid response, actively involving patients and the public in the creation of digital related information may help to improve accessibility, relevance and understanding, potentially removing one of the key identified barriers to patients joining their VC. An implication of this work is thus an identified need to establish best practice for rapid co-design, when implementation timing is critical. Any future patient information may also include guidance for patients on camera positioning, to reduce another barrier identified in this work. Healthcare services may also benefit from recommending particular devices based on their functionality and service requirements. For example, larger, more static screens may be suitable for interactive CBT, child therapies or family-based interventions. Alternatively, services that require mobility assessments may be bettered suited to more portable devices such as mobiles or tablets.

Finally, in response to patients noting administrative and human errors, the collaborative development of checklists and supportive training may be beneficial. Trusts could perhaps include on-screen checklists on patient records to ensure scheduling VCs is followed by the provision of an appropriate link, patient facing guidance and set-up support.

Implications for future research

Further research is required to explore and compare areas of divergence and similarities between the experiences of healthcare professionals and patients. Such research would support sustainment of VCs for both parties to the consultation. Based on the limitations of this work and reliance on feedback from patients who successfully accessed a VC; future research could explore challenges and barriers faced by individuals choosing not, or unable to use VCs, particularly those considered to be ‘seldom heard’ or marginalised in the context of digital health. This may develop a more nuanced understanding of ways to increase accessibility and acceptability. Critical exploration of what works for who, when, and in what circumstances would also aid in supporting suitability guidance. By doing so, the potential benefits and experiences of VCs could be best realised. Stakeholders including researchers, innovators, patients and health and care professionals should continue to identify and engage with individuals considered to be ‘seldom heard’ or excluded in a digital context as this may differ to other contexts and previous definitions (29). Similarly, there is an important balance to be struck between acknowledging an increase in accessibility for some patient groups as a result of digitalisation (who may usually encounter difficulties in accessing face-to-face services), while also acknowledging a reduction in accessibility for others. This aspect needs urgent further work, and reiterates the importance of patient choice and availability of multiple mediums to access health and care services in the modern and rapidly evolving world.

This consideration may also be true for patients of different ages, considering our results show some older patients required support in accessing their VC. Patients in the older age bracket also represented the smallest group in our sample, based on successful VC use, thus future consideration needs to be given to accessibility. Indeed, consideration is particularly needed for older adults without access to family support to help facilitate VCs.

Other implications for future research include a need to identify the mechanisms that give rise to the positive patient experiences and high levels of intention to use VCs in the future as demonstrated by the Trust in this research. By doing so, other Trusts and healthcare services can engage with acknowledged areas of best practice that serves the needs of both patients and health care professionals. Economic evaluations that incorporate clinician, patient and environmental savings may also be beneficial, although it is important to emphasise that potential cost savings should not take precedence over patient safety, quality of care and stakeholder experience.

Additionally, suggestions made in this research that video consultations improve the ‘affordability’ of appointments and sharing of personal or clinically relevant information are important areas of future interest. Future research questions could include: how and in what ways, have video consultations affected patient accessibility? Similarly, how if at all, do video consultations affect the therapeutic relationship? Future research could compare patient feedback or levels of satisfaction with more conventional face-to-face consultations or other VC platforms. Additionally, the range and type of consultations available to patients are currently limited and expressed satisfaction may reflect a lack of choice or alternatives. Future research may review and compare patient experiences over time, particularly during times of heightened and reduced Covid-19 restrictions.

Finally, the implications for practice noted above on development of improved patient information and an administrative checklist for clinicians may both benefit from a collaborative co-design approach. Future research could look to re-assess patient experience based on implementation of the co-designed items. Indeed, the creation of patient feedback surveys themselves may also benefit from co-design with all relevant stakeholders to ensure valued aspects of service delivery, patient safety and quality of care are considered (13, 30). Where possible, surveys should also include narrative and quantitative questions as a reliance on quantitative measures alone can give rise to an over-inflated perception of patient experience and satisfaction as frequently demonstrated in existing literature (31). While the exclusion of patient input in survey design may be as a result of rapid implementation, exploring rapid co-design methods may be an interesting area of future work.