Factors contributing to telemedicine efficacy in pediatric urology.

INTRODUCTION: Despite swift implementation of telemedicine with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there is a paucity of research on its use for management of pediatric urology patients. Specifically, there is limited knowledge and inconsistent data on the effectiveness of telemedicine for various pediatric urologic conditions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of pediatric urological care provided via video visits (VVs) at a large tertiary care children's hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective assessment of pediatric urology patients younger than 21 years who had a VV between 5/18/2022 and 5/17/2023. New patients with a testicular diagnosis were not eligible for VVs. After entering the diagnosis and submitting billing using a modifier for telemedicine, clinicians were mandated to select whether the VV allowed for: complete case management (CCM), suboptimal case management (SCM), or incomplete case management (ICM) requiring an in-person visit. Case management categorizations were analyzed according to patient pathology, visit type (i.e., new or established), and patient-centered variables including age, sex, race, insurance type, need for an interpreter, and distress score [a proxy for socioeconomic status].

RESULTS: During the one-year period, there were 3267 telemedicine patients with a median age of 9 years (IQR 3-13) and 57.0% were male. Most VVs (89.3%) were established encounters. Almost 12% of telemedicine patients had external organ pathology (EOP, e.g., phimosis), 43.0% had internal organ pathology (IOP, e.g., hydronephrosis), and 45.1% had functional urological pathology (FUP, e.g., dysfunctional voiding). Clinicians deemed 96.9%, 2.7%, and 0.5% of VVs as having CCM, SCM or ICM, respectively. Telemedicine patients with IOP or FUP were more likely to have CCM, than those with EOP (98.5% and 97.8% vs 87.1%, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patient age, pathology, and visit type were predictive of VV efficacy.

DISCUSSION: Now that telemedicine use has slowed, it is necessary to evaluate and establish its optimal role in pediatric urology. Factors associated with VV efficacy included older patient age, internal organ or functional urological pathology, and established encounters. The long-term success of telemedicine requires suitable patient selection.

CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine is quite effective for the management of a wide variety of pediatric urology patients. Continued evaluation of telemedicine, including multi-institutional investigation and corroboration, is necessary for the development of evidence-based best practice guidelines regarding appropriate, safe, and effective integration of telemedicine that drives pediatric urological care forward to meet the demands of the future.