Open AccessPatients With Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Analyzing the Effectiveness of Remote Triage and Management
Author(s) -
Longobardi Ylenia,
Galli Jacopo,
D’Alatri Lucia,
Savoia Vezio,
Mari Giorgia,
Rigante Mario,
Passali Giulio Cesare,
Bussu Francesco,
Parrilla Claudio
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599820948043
Subject(s) - medicine , anxiety , laryngectomy , hospital anxiety and depression scale , otorhinolaryngology , physical therapy , telemedicine , patient satisfaction , prosthesis , telehealth , visual analogue scale , depression (economics) , medical emergency , surgery , health care , psychiatry , larynx , economics , economic growth , macroeconomics
Objective To describe a remote approach used with patients with voice prosthesis after laryngectomy during the COVID‐19 pandemic and the resulting clinical outcomes in terms of voice prosthesis complications management, oncological monitoring, and psychophysical well‐being. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Otolaryngology Clinic of the University Polyclinic A. Gemelli, IRCCS Foundation. Subjects and Methods All patients with voice prosthesis who underwent laryngectomy followed by our institute were offered enrollment. Patients who agreed to participate were interviewed to inquire about the nature of the need and to plan a video call with the appropriate clinician. Before and 1 week after the clinician’s call, patients were tested with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Degrees of satisfaction were investigated with a visual analog scale. A comparison between those who accepted and refused telematic support was carried out to identify factors that influence patient interest in teleservice. Results Video call service allowed us to reach 37 (50.68%) of 73 patients. In 23 (62.16%) of 37 cases, the video call was sufficient to manage the problem. In the remaining 14 cases (37.83%), an outpatient visit was necessary. Participants who refused telematic support had a significantly shorter time interval from the last ear, nose, and throat visit than patients who accepted (57.95 vs 96.14 days, P =. 03). Video‐called patients showed significantly decreased levels of anxiety and depression (mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total score pre– vs post–video call: 13.97 vs. 10.23, P <. 0001) and reported high levels of satisfaction about the service. Conclusion Remote approach may be a viable support in the management of patients with voice prosthesis rehabilitation.