Demographic and technological factors influencing virtual seizure clinic visit satisfaction before and during the Covid-19 pandemic in rural Hawaii

Background: Telemedicine clinic visits traditionally originated from spoke clinic sites, but recent trends have favored home-based telemedicine, particularly in the time of Covid-19. Our study focused on identification of barriers and factors influencing perceptions of care with use of home-based telemedicine in patients with seizures living in rural Hawaii. We additionally compared characteristics of patients using telemedicine versus in-person clinic visits prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: For the retrospective portion of our study, we queried charts of adult outpatients treated by the two full-time epileptologists at a Level 4 epilepsy center accredited by the National Association of Epilepsy Centers between November 2018 and December 2019. We included patients who live on the neighbor islands of Hawaii but not on Oahu, i.e., patients who would require air travel to see an epileptologist. There had been no set protocol at the epilepsy center for telemedicine referral; our practice had been to offer telemedicine visits to all neighbor island patients when felt to be appropriate. We collected demographic and clinic visit data. For the prospective portion we surveyed neighbor island patients or their caregivers, seen via home-based telemedicine between March 2020 and December 2020. We obtained verbal consent for study participation. Survey questions addressed satisfaction with clinical care, visit preferences, and potential barriers to care. Results: In a 14-month period prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, 75 (61%) neighbor island patients were seen exclusively in-person in seizure clinic while 47 (39%) had at least one telemedicine visit. 39% of patients seen only in-person were female whereas 38% of patients seen by telemedicine were female. Patients seen in-person had an older median age (47.2 years) compared to those seen at least once by telemedicine (42.4 years). The no-show rate was 13% for in-person visits versus 4% for telemedicine visits. Among patients seen in person, 17% were Asian, 32% Native Hawaiian, and 47% White, whereas patients seen by telemedicine were 15% Asian, 23% Native Hawaiian, and 57% White. Patients who were seen in person lived in zip codes with median household income of $68,516 and patients who were seen by telemedicine lived in zip codes with median household income of $67,089. Patients who were seen in person lived in zip codes in which 78% of the population had access to broadband internet, whereas patients who were seen by telemedicine lived in zip codes in which 79% of the population had access to broadband internet. During the Covid-19 pandemic, we surveyed 47 consecutive patients seen by telemedicine, 45% female with median age of 33 years. Telemedicine connection was set up by the patient in 74% of cases, or by the patient's mother (15%), other family member (9%), or other caregiver (2 %). Median patient satisfaction score was 5 (“highly satisfied”) on a 5-point Likert scale with mean score of 4.6. Telemedicine visit was done using a smartphone by 62% of patients, a computer by 36% of patients, and a tablet by 2% of patients. A home WiFi connection was used in 83% of patients. Conclusions: Home-based telemedicine visits provide a high-satisfaction method for seizure care delivery despite some obstacles. Demographic disparities may be an obstacle to telemedicine care and seem to relate to race and possibly age, rather than to sex/gender, household income, or access to broadband internet. Additionally, despite high satisfaction overall, more patients felt the physical exam was superior at in-person clinic visits and more patients expressed a preference for in-person visits. During the Covid-19 pandemic when there may be barriers to in-person clinic visits, home-based telemedicine is a feasible alternative.