Objective To investigate patient perspective of telephone consultations (TCs) in gynaecology and identify which patients benefit most from a telemedicine system. Design Service evaluation.Setting Gynaecology outpatient services at a tertiary referral hospital.Population Patients who received a TC during May and June 2020.Methods Postal questionnaire combining three validated tools: QQ-10, Patient Enablement Index (PEI) and National Health Service Friends and Family Test (NHS-FFT). Quantitative data and free text responses were analysed.Main outcome measures Responses to QQ-10, PEI and NHS-FFT.Results In total, 1307 patients were contacted and 504 patients responded (39%). Most (89%) described their experience as 'Very good' or 'Good' (NHS-FFT). Positive themes from responses included 'convenience', 'effectiveness' and 'equivalent care'. QQ-10 responses demonstrated a high Value score of 79 (0-100) and a low Burden score of 15. PEI scores suggested that most patients felt better or much better able to understand and cope with their condition following TC. The majority of patients (77%) would 'Strongly agree' or 'Mostly agree' to a repeat TC. Regarding patient outcomes, 21% were discharged and 71% required follow up. Menopause, fertility and endometriosis follow-up clinic patients benefited most from TC. Gynaecology-oncology patients found TC least acceptable. ConclusionWe report a large questionnaire survey of patient experience of TC in gynaecology. Telemedicine is convenient, acceptable and effective for conducting care in selected groups. TC can support patients in communicating intimate symptoms.

Introduction and hypothesis Due to increasing burden on outpatient services, there is a drive from NHS policy makers to utilise virtual clinics to help curb unsustainable demand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, urogynaecology clinics were converted to telephone consultation (TC). We used this opportunity to evaluate patient perspective and identify which patients may be best suited to TC. Methods Postal questionnaires were sent to patients following urogynaecology TCs in May to June 2020. Clinical outcome data were obtained from electronic records. The survey combined three validated tools: QQ-10, Patient Enablement Index (PEI) and NHS Friends and Family Test (NHS-FFT). Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed. Results Of the 308 patients contacted, 165 responded (54%). Eighty-six percent of patients described their experience of TC as “very good” or “good” (NHS-FFT). Positive themes included convenience, thoroughness and feeling at ease in terms of communicating intimate symptoms. QQ-10 results demonstrated a mean value score of 77 and a mean burden score of 17 (range 0–100); 72% of patients “strongly” or “mostly” agreed to repeat TC. Following TC, 22% of patients were discharged, 72% required follow-up and 37% needed face-to-face (F2F) consultation. Post-operative patients and those with lower urinary tract symptoms benefited most, whereas many prolapse patients required F2F consultation. Conclusions We report the largest qualitative and quantitative study of patient experience of TC in urogynaecology. TC is a convenient, acceptable and effective medium for conducting patient care. TC can support patients in communicating intimate symptoms with health professionals.

Aim: There is emerging evidence supporting early bowel resection (EBR) for ileocaecal Crohn's disease (CD) as an alternative to conventional escalation of medical therapy (MT).Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of EBR with those of MT in ileocolonic CD, with a focus on ileocaecal disease. Methodology:The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EBR versus MT for ileocolonic CD. The Cochrane tools for assessment of risk of bias were used to assess the methodological quality of studies.Results: Nine records (from 8 studies, with a total of 1867 patients) were included in the analysis. Six studies were observational and two were randomised controlled trials. There was a reduced need for drug therapy in the EBR arm. The rate of intestinal resection at 5 years was 7.8% in the EBR arm and 25.4% in the MT group with a pooled OR of 0.32 (95% CI 0.19, 0.54; p < 0.0001). The EBR group had a longer resection-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38, 0.83; p = 0.004). These outcomes were consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with ileocaecal disease. Morbidity and quality of life scores were similar across the two groups. Conclusion:EBR is associated with a more stable remission compared to initial MT for ileocolonic Crohn's disease. There is enough evidence to support EBR as an alternative to escalation of MT in selected patients with limited ileocaecal disease.