Cited by 39Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationUrinary Tract Infections ManagementElectronic Health Records Systems

Comparison of eVisit Management of Urinary Symptoms and Urinary Tract Infections with Standard Care

Murray, Martha A., Penza, Kristine S., Myers, Jane F., Furst, Joseph W., Pecina, Jennifer L.·2020·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

Background: Urinary symptoms and urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common complaints for which women seek health care. Evolving modalities of care delivery have shifted management of these complaints from in-person face-to-face (F2F) visits, to nurse phone protocol management, and recently to online assessment via eVisit. While research has vetted the use of nurse phone protocol management, eVisit management outcomes have not been thoroughly studied. Purpose: To compare antibiotic prescribing, follow-up rates, and clinical outcomes between F2F visits at a retail clinic, nurse phone protocol encounters, and eVisits for the assessment and management of urinary symptoms and UTIs. Methods: A retrospective chart review of primary care empaneled patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester was conducted of females, 18 to 65 years old, who sought care for urinary symptoms via phone, eVisit, or F2F visit from August 1, 2016, through May 1, 2017. A total of 450 encounters, 150 from each of the 3 encounter types, were manually reviewed and compared for antibiotic prescribing rates, clinical outcomes, and 30-day follow-up rates. Results: Antibiotic prescribing rates for all three encounter types were similar. Referral for follow-up at initial encounter was more likely to be recommended from phone and eVisit encounters than F2F. No significant differences in follow-up rates or clinical outcomes were noted between the three encounter types. Conclusions: eVisits for urinary symptoms and UTI offer patients a convenient option for care without an increased use of antimicrobials, follow-up, or adverse clinical outcomes when compared with F2F visits or nurse-administered phone protocols.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2019.0044

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, M. A., Penza, K. S., Myers, J. F., Furst, J. W., & Pecina, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Department of Family Medicine, Employee and Community Health, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Corresponding author
Murray, Martha A.
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2020-05-01
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
639-644
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2957368575
Cited by
39
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
urinary tract infection, urinary symptoms, antibiotic prescribing, follow-up rates, telemedicine, women's health, primary care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Telephone, Urinary Tract Infections, Telemedicine, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review