Virtual Neurology Visits Show Similar 90-Day Acute Care Utilization Rates

The Integration of Telemedicine in Neurologic Practice

The rapid expansion of digital health technologies has transformed the delivery of specialty care, moving beyond simple triage to become a staple of chronic disease management [1]. While mobile health applications and remote monitoring have demonstrated utility in improving access for patients with limited mobility or geographic barriers, the transition from in-person to virtual platforms raises concerns regarding diagnostic accuracy and long-term safety [2, 3]. This is particularly relevant in neurology, where the physical examination is traditionally considered a cornerstone of the initial diagnostic workup [4]. Previous data suggest that while virtual modalities can support adherence in complex chronic conditions, their efficacy in the initial evaluation of undifferentiated neurologic presentations remains under scrutiny [5]. Clinicians must now determine if the convenience of remote consultation compromises downstream healthcare utilization or patient outcomes. A recent multicenter analysis provides data to address these concerns.

A Multicenter Comparison of Care Delivery Models

To evaluate the clinical impact of virtual care, researchers conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults seeking a new outpatient neurology consultation between September 2020 and December 2021. Data were extracted from the Vizient Clinical Data Base and the Clinical Practice Solutions Center databases, encompassing records from three distinct academic medical centers. The initial dataset was substantial, as the authors identified 10,428 virtual and 36,767 in-person neurology new outpatient visits during the study period. This large sample size provided the necessary statistical power to compare how different modes of care delivery influenced subsequent medical utilization. To ensure a rigorous comparison, the study employed propensity score matching (a statistical technique that balances groups by matching patients with similar baseline characteristics to simulate a randomized trial). By matching patients 1:1 based on demographics, clinical characteristics, the specific time period of the encounter, and previous health care utilization, the researchers minimized the impact of confounding factors that might otherwise skew the results. After applying this matching process, the final cohort consisted of 8,202 virtual visits matched to 8,202 in-person visits. This balanced framework allowed the investigators to isolate the effect of the visit modality on 90-day acute care utilization and follow-up patterns, providing clinicians with a clearer understanding of the safety and efficacy of virtual neurologic evaluations.

Stability in Acute Care and Long-Term Follow-Up

Continuity of care remained remarkably stable regardless of the initial consultation format, suggesting that virtual visits do not lead to higher rates of patient attrition. The researchers found that neurology follow-up within 90 days did not differ between virtual and in-person visits, with rates of 24.6% and 23.7%, respectively (p = 0.18). This stability in care patterns extended beyond the immediate three month window, as neurology clinic follow-up at 6 months and 1 year was similar between groups. These findings suggest that the initial modality of the visit does not significantly alter the long term engagement of the patient with the neurology clinic, ensuring that patients seen via telemedicine remain integrated into the healthcare system at rates comparable to those seen in a traditional office setting. Regarding acute care needs, the data indicated that virtual evaluations did not result in an increased burden on emergency services for neurologic issues. Neurologic emergency department visits within 90 days were similar between virtual and in-person groups, occurring in 0.9% of virtual patients compared to 0.8% of in-person patients (p = 0.23). Similarly, the rate of neurologic hospitalizations within 90 days was comparable between the two cohorts, with 1.8% of the virtual group and 1.7% of the in-person group requiring inpatient admission (p = 0.47). These results provide clinical reassurance that virtual consultations are not associated with a higher risk of missed acute neurologic deterioration requiring urgent intervention. The investigators also examined broader health care utilization to capture any potential indirect effects of the visit modality on patient well-being. All-cause emergency department visits within 90 days were comparable between the groups, at 1.8% for virtual visits and 1.7% for in-person visits (p = 0.59). Furthermore, all-cause hospitalizations within 90 days were similar, with 2.2% of virtual patients and 1.8% of in-person patients admitted to the hospital (p = 0.13). Collectively, these metrics suggest that the use of telemedicine for new neurology patients does not lead to a significant increase in downstream acute care utilization, whether for neurologic or general medical concerns, supporting the safety of this care delivery model.

Variations by Neurologic Chief Complaint

Granular analysis reveals that while aggregate data suggest parity, patient engagement patterns fluctuate significantly based on the initial reason for consultation. The researchers observed that thirty-day neurology clinic follow-up was slightly lower after virtual visits compared to in-person encounters, suggesting a minor delay in immediate return visits for the telemedicine cohort. However, when the data were stratified by specific neurologic conditions, distinct trends emerged regarding which patients remained most engaged with the health system. For instance, ninety-day follow-up was higher after in-person visits for dementia, a finding that may reflect the complex physical and cognitive assessment needs of this population that clinicians often prefer to address in a traditional office setting. Conversely, certain chronic neurologic conditions appeared to benefit from the accessibility of telemedicine. The study found that thirty-day and ninety-day follow-up was higher after virtual visits for Parkinson disease, and similarly, thirty-day and ninety-day follow-up was higher after virtual visits for multiple sclerosis. These findings suggest that patients with mobility challenges or those requiring frequent monitoring may find the virtual format more conducive to maintaining continuity of care. Furthermore, ninety-day follow-up was higher after virtual visits for headache, indicating that this common chief complaint is well-suited for digital management. Despite these follow-up trends, the researchers noted that diagnostic testing was more frequent after in-person visits for certain chief complaints, a factor that clinicians must weigh when determining the most appropriate initial modality for a new patient evaluation. This suggests that while virtual visits are safe and effective for many, the in-person encounter remains a critical tool for conditions requiring intensive diagnostic workups or complex physical assessments.

References

1. Fonseca MHD, Kovaleski F, Picinin CT, Pedroso B, Rubbo P. E-Health Practices and Technologies: A Systematic Review from 2014 to 2019. Healthcare. 2021. doi:10.3390/healthcare9091192

2. Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L. A Systematic Review of Healthcare Applications for Smartphones. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2012. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-67

3. Lu L, Zhang J, Xie Y, et al. Wearable Health Devices in Health Care: Narrative Systematic Review. JMIR mhealth and uhealth. 2020. doi:10.2196/18907

4. Senyel D, Senn KC, Boyd JH, Nagels K. A systematic review of telemedicine for neuromuscular diseases: components and determinants of practice. BMC Digital Health. 2024. doi:10.1186/s44247-024-00078-9

5. Yagudina R, Kulikov A, Serpik V, Protsenko M, Kopeyka K. Factors Affecting Adherence to a Low Phenylalanine Diet in Patients with Phenylketonuria: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2024. doi:10.3390/nu16183119