Cited by 27Ocular Infections and TreatmentsAntibiotic Use and ResistanceTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Treating pediatric conjunctivitis without an exam: An evaluation of outcomes and antibiotic usage

Penza, Kristine S, Murray, Martha A, Myers, Jane F, Maxson, Julie, Furst, Joseph W, Pecina, Jennifer L·2020·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this research paper is to compare antibiotic treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up encounters among eVisits, phone calls, and in-person encounters for pediatric conjunctivitis. Study design: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients evaluated for conjunctivitis between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, was performed. A total of 101 eVisits, 202 in-person retail clinic visits, and 202 nurse phone calls for conjunctivitis were manually reviewed for outcomes. Exclusion criteria included previous encounter for conjunctivitis in the past 14 days, treatment with an oral antibiotic at the initial encounter, or patient outside Minnesota at the time of encounter. Comparison among the three encounter types with regard to follow-up rates, follow-up encounter type within 14 days of initial evaluation, and prescribing rates was performed. Results: Patients completing non-face-to-face encounters were significantly more likely to have follow-up care (34.6% and 45.5%) than those who had a face-to-face visit at the retail clinic (7.4%), p ≤ 0.0001. Patients initially evaluated by eVisit were more likely to have follow-up at the retail clinic while patients initially evaluated by phone call were more likely to have follow-up in their primary care office. Treatment rates with antibiotics were significantly higher in phone call encounters (41.6%) than in eVisits (25.7%) or face-to-face encounters (19.8%), p < 0.0001. Conclusions: Non-face-to-face visits have significantly higher rates of follow-up when compared to face-to-face encounters. Antibiotic prescribing is greater with phone call triage encounters; however, there was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between eVisits and face-to-face visits. Follow-up type varied according to site of initial encounter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1357633x18793031

Cites

23 of 23 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
Penza, K. S., Murray, M. A., Myers, J. F., Maxson, J., Furst, J. W., & Pecina, J. L.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Pecina, Jennifer L
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2018-08-28
Volume
26
Issue
1-2
Pages
73-78
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2888925251
Cited by
27
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Mayo Clinic Department of Family Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Infections and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
pediatric conjunctivitis, telephone triage, retail clinics, follow-up care, antibiotic prescribing, telemedicine
MeSH terms
Aftercare, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Child, Conjunctivitis, Female, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Telephone, User-Computer Interface, Telemedicine, Mobile Applications

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