Objective-To test the hypothesis that telemedicine for new patient referrals to neurological outpatients is as eYcient and acceptable as conventional face to face consultation. Methods-A randomised controlled trial between two groups: face to face (FF) and telemedicine (TM). This study was carried out between a neurological centre and outlying clinics at two distant hospitals linked by identical medium cost commercial interactive video conferencing equipment with ISDN lines transmitting information at 384 kbits/s. The same two neurologists carried out both arms of the study.Of the 168 patients who were suitable for the study, 86 were randomised into the telemedicine group and 82 into the face to face group. Outcome measures were (1) consultation process: (a) number of investigations; (b) number of drugs prescribed; (c) number of patient reviews and (2) patient satisfaction: (a) confidence in consultation; (b) technical aspects of consultation; (c) aspects surrounding confidentiality. Diagnostic categories were also measured to check equivalence between the groups: these were structural neurological, structural non-neurological, nonstructural, and uncertain. Results-Diagnostic categories were similar (p>0.5) between the two groups. Patients in the telemedicine group had significantly more investigations (p=0.001). There was no diVerence in the number of drugs prescribed (p>0.5). Patients were generally satisfied with both types of consultation process except for concerns about confidentiality and embarrassment in the telemedicine group (p=0.017 and p=0.005 respectively). Conclusion-Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients is possible and feasible but generates more investigations and is less well accepted than face to face examination. (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:63-66)

Objectives: To determine whether an email triage system between general practitioners and a neurologist for new outpatient referrals is feasible, acceptable, efficient, safe, and effective. Methods: This was a prospective single cohort study on the interface between primary care practitioners and the neurology clinic of a district general hospital. Seventy six consecutive patients with neurological symptoms from nine GPs, for whom a specialist opinion was deemed necessary, were entered in the study. The number of participants managed without clinic attendance and the reduction in neurologist's time compared with conventional consultation was measured, as was death, other specialist referral, and change in diagnosis in the 6 months after episode completion. The acceptability for GPs was ascertained by questionnaire. Results: Forty three per cent of participants required a clinic appointment, 45% were managed by email advice alone, and 12% by email plus investigations. GP satisfaction was high. Forty four per cent of the neurologist's time was saved compared with conventional consultation. No deaths or significant changes in diagnosis were recorded during the 6 month follow up period. Conclusions: Email triage is feasible, acceptable to GPs, and safe. It has the potential for making the practice of neurologists more efficient, and this needs to be tested in a larger randomised study.

We investigated whether new patients attending a neurological outpatient clinic could be safely managed by neurologists at a distance, using a video-link. In Northern Ireland, a video-link, transmitting at 384 kbit/s, was set up between a neurological centre and a small rural hospital 140 km away. Twenty-five unselected patients who had been referred by their family doctor were assessed by a neurologist using the telemedicine link and then immediately by another neurologist face to face. Examiners were blinded to the results of each other's assessment. In 24 cases the diagnoses made after the telemedicine and face-to-face examinations were identical. There were minor differences between the type and number of investigations requested, and the requirements for treatment and follow-up between the two groups. Disposal method was the same in 21 of the cases. No major organizational difficulties were encountered during the study. The study showed that neurologists can deliver outpatient neurological care to distant patients using telemedicine. This has the potential to allow access to assessment for the large number of neurological outpatients who might otherwise be denied it.

There is a lack of uniformity among the products tested and the majority (67%) of the products contained less than 90% of labeled amounts. There is significant variability in the compositions between the products and in the composition of the same product over time. Consumers cannot trust isoflavonoid product labels to represent the product's content accurately or that product pricing is a reflection of isoflavone content.

We introduced an email teleneurology service for patients referred to a neurologist by general practitioners. Over 14 months, 76 referrals (of 75 patients) were received. To determine the sustainability of the service, we studied a second cohort of 76 consecutive patients referred after our first study. We also followed up the first cohort of patients to get information on longer-term safety. The second cohort was obtained in one month less than the first, and had similar characteristics in terms of age, sex and the time taken by the neurologist to reply to the general practitioner. It contained fewer patients requiring clinic appointments (34% versus 43%). Fewer patients from the second cohort were referred for second opinions (4 versus 10) and there were no resulting changes in diagnosis. Follow-up of the first cohort from a mean of 6 months to a mean of 23 months led to seven more re-referrals and no additional changes in diagnosis. We conclude that teleneurology by email is sustainable for this group of patients, and confirm that it is safe, effective and efficient.