Table 4.
Values and criticisms of Virtual First (N=176).
| Responses | Patients, n (%) | |
| Valued aspects of care | ||
|
|
Care in comfort of home | 137 (77.8) |
|
|
Availability of appointments | 105 (59.6) |
|
|
Not waiting in a lobby | 100 (56.8) |
|
|
Decreased infectious exposure | 89 (50.6) |
|
|
Instant access to providera | 5 (2.8) |
|
|
Quality EMCa,b | 4 (2.3) |
|
|
Did not valuea | 1 (0.6) |
| Critiques of care | ||
|
|
Nothinga | 58 (33.0) |
|
|
Poor reception or connectivity | 47 (26.7) |
|
|
Inability to obtain labs or imaging | 23 (13.1) |
|
|
Needed in-person medical care despite Virtual First visit | 14 (13.1) |
|
|
Wanted a doctor to perform a physical exam | 10 (5.7) |
|
|
EMC would not prescribe desired antibiotics or other medicationsa | 7 (4.0) |
|
|
Bad interaction with EMCa | 2 (1.1) |
|
|
Billing not well explaineda | 1 (0.6) |
aFree-text response categories.
bEMC: emergency medicine clinician.