Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#273 Virtual visits versus face-to-face: Diagnostic accuracy in primary care


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What is the diagnostic accuracy of primary care physicians performing virtual visits compared to in-person visits for undifferentiated presentations?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Based on limited, lower-level evidence, diagnostic accuracy of virtual visits was between 71-91%, measured using standardized patients or case review at 3 months. Diagnostic accuracy/agreement of virtual care seems similar to in-person visits. These studies do not address continuity of care or patient outcomes.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Diagnostic cohort, 97 adults, first visit general medicine clinic, in-person followed by videoconference with different physician.1 
    • Diagnostic accuracy (determined by 3-month chart review) not significantly different between: 
      • In-person 83%, videoconference 80%.
        • Most common presentations: respiratory (22%), digestive (19%), circulatory (10%). 
        • 57% acute, 43% chronic presentations. 
    • Limitations: always assessed in-person first, no long-term follow-up. 
Audit of 599 virtual visits, 67 standardized patients, one of six presentations [ankle pain, viral or bacterial pharyngitis, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), rhinosinusitis and low back pain]:2 
  • Variation in diagnostic accuracy depending on: 
    • Presentation (71% for rhinosinusitis, 91% for UTI). 
  • No difference diagnostic accuracy with video versus telephone. 
  • Limitations: limited single concerns, not real patients. 
Randomized cross-over trial,175 adults in primary-care, randomized to compare videoconference to in-person visits or compare two in-person visits. Both visits were with different physicians.3 
  • Diagnostic agreement not significantly different between: 
    • Videoconference and in-person: 84%. 
    • Two different physicians in-person: 80%. 
  • Limitations: small numbers, both undifferentiated concerns and chronic diseases. 
Systematic reviews on virtual care report on access, satisfaction, cost, and clinical load, however evidence on diagnostic accuracy is limited.4,5  Context: 
  • Virtual visits defined here as videoconferencing or telephone calls. 
  • Concerns about virtual visits include difficulty building rapport, risks to follow-up and continuity of care.6,7
    • Continuity of care results in lower costs, hospitalizations, and mortality in the long-term.8,9
  • Diagnostic error is difficult to assess. Observational studies10 including longer follow-up estimate outpatient diagnostic errors (including missed cancers) occur at a rate of ~5%. 
  • Most “missed” diagnoses were common conditions in primary care: pneumonia (6.7%), heart failure (5.7%), acute renal failure (5.3%), and cancer (5.3%).11 


James Lanz-O'Brien April 24, 2021

It’s good to see that virtual visits are somewhat viable beyond my anecdotal experience given the current precautions with the COVID-19 pandemic. I remain skeptical of them in chronically unwell patients and patients who often require a physical examination, such as heart failure patients.

Gilbert Bretecher May 31, 2023

small difference in virtual visits vs office visit


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Logan Sept
  • Jessica Kirkwood MD CCFP
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP

1. Ohta M, Ohira Y, Uehara T, et al. Telemed J E Health. 2017 Feb; 23(2):119-129.

2. Schoenfeld AJ, Davies JM, Marafino BJ, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2016; 176(5):635-42.

3. Dixon RF, Stahl JE. J Telemed Telecare. 2009; 15(3):115-7.

4. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 7(9):CD002098.

5. Lake R, Georgiou A, Li J, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1):614.

6. Hammersley V, Donaghy E, Parker R, et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2019; 69(686):e595-e604.

7. Hardcastle L, Ubaka Ogbogu U. Healthcare Management Forum. July 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470420938818 Accessed August 31, 2020.

8. Bazemore A, Petterson S, Peterson LE, et al. Ann Fam Med. 2018; 16(6):492-497.

9. Pereira Gray DJ, Sidaway-Lee K, White E, et al. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6):e021161.

10. Singh H, Meyer AN, Thomas EJ. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014; 23(9):727-731

11. Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(6):418-425.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.