PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Julianne N. Kubes AU - Ilana Graetz AU - Zanthia Wiley AU - Nicole Franks AU - Ambar Kulshreshtha TI - Associations of Telemedicine vs. In-Person Ambulatory Care Visits on Cancellation Rates and 30-Day Follow-Up Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits AID - 10.1101/2021.08.13.21262018 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.08.13.21262018 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/18/2021.08.13.21262018.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/18/2021.08.13.21262018.full AB - Importance Studies have shown that telemedicine use in specific conditions can promote continuity of care, decreases healthcare costs, and can potentially improve clinical outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many healthcare systems to expand access for patients using telemedicine, but little is known about cancellation frequencies in telemedicine vs. in-person appointments and its impact on clinical outcomes.Objective Compare ambulatory clinic cancellation rates, 30-day inpatient hospitalizations rates, and 30-day emergency department visit rates between in-person and video telemedicine appointments, and examine differences in cancellation rates by age, race/ethnicity, gender, and insurance.Design A retrospective cohort study.Setting The largest academic healthcare system in the state of Georgia with ambulatory clinics in urban, suburban and rural settings.Participants Adults scheduled for an ambulatory clinic appointment from June 2020 to December 2020 were included. Each appointment was identified as either a video telemedicine or in-person clinic appointment. Demographics including age, race, ethnicity, gender, primary insurance, and comorbidities were extracted from the electronic medical record.Main Outcomes and Measures The primary process outcome was ambulatory clinic cancellation rates. The primary clinical outcomes were 30-day hospitalization rates and 30-day emergency department visit rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in the clinical outcomes between appointment types.Results A total of 1,652,623 ambulatory clinic appointments were scheduled during the study period. Ambulatory appointment cancellations rates were significantly lower among telemedicine appointments compared to in-person appointments (20.5% vs. 31.0%, p <.001). Cancellation rates were significantly lower for telemedicine appointments than in-person appointments regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity, primary insurance, or specialty (p <.05 for all sub-groups). Telemedicine appointments was associated with lower 30-day hospitalization rates compared to in-person appointments (2.1% vs. 2.8%; aOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.74). There was no difference in 30-day emergency department visit rates between telemedicine and in-person appointment patients (2.6% vs. 2.6%: aOR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02)Conclusions and Relevance Our findings suggest that there are fewer barriers to attending an ambulatory care visit via telemedicine relative than in-person. Moreover, using telemedicine was not associated with any more frequent adverse clinical events compared with in-person visits.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialStudy was retrospective cohort, not a clinical trialFunding StatementKubes received no funding. Kulshreshtha received funding from NIH/National Institute on Aging grant K23AG066931 and from the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation Woodruff Health Sciences Center COVID-19 Center for Urgent Research Engagement (CURE) Award. Graetz received funding from NIH/National Cancer Institute grant 5R01CA218155-04. Wiley received funding from the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation Woodruff Health Sciences Center COVID-19 Center for Urgent Research Engagement (CURE) Award. Franks received funding from the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation Woodruff Health Sciences Center COVID-19 Center for Urgent Research Engagement (CURE) Award. The funding sources of this study had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or the preparation, review, and decision to submit the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Emory Emory Institutional Review Board is responsible for reviewing human subjects research and FDA-regulated clinical investigations, and ensuring that they are conducted in accordance with applicable federal regulations and institutional policies. For this study, no patient identifiers were used, and the study was reviewed and deemed exempt by Emory Institutional Review Board.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data was extracted from the electronic medical record via a secured and encrypted clinical data warehouse used at Emory Healthcare. Data is not available to individuals outside of Emory Healthcare or Emory University.