Table 3.

Orthopaedic surgeon’s evaluation of the consultation per allocation^a

	UNN,	RMC, video	p-valueb	p-valuec
	standard consultation	conference consultation
How well did you perceive the patient cooperated during the consultation? (254 + 299)d			p = 0.58	p = 0.75
Very good	95 (37)	105 (35)
Good	157 (62)	190 (64)
Neither good nor bad	2 (1)	3 (1)
Bad	0 (0)	1 (0)
Very bad	0 (0)	0 (0)
How well could you evaluate/examine the patient? (243 + 290)d			P < 0.001	P < 0.001
Very good	98 (40)	57 (20)
Good	144 (59)	225 (78)
Neither good nor bad	1 (0)	7 (2)
Bad	0 (0)	1 (0)
Very bad	0 (0)	0 (0)
How well could you treat the patient? (246 + 292)d			p = 0.068	p = 0.039
Very good	23 (16)	12 (7)
Good	119 (83)	155 (91)
Neither good nor bad	1 (1)	2 (1)
Bad	0 (0)	1 (1)
Very bad	1 (1)	0 (0)
Other (not applicable)	102	122
How well could you inform the patient? (254 + 298)d			p = 0.106	p = 0.28
Very good	54 (22)	50 (17)
Good	191 (77)	233 (79)
Neither good nor bad	4 (2)	12 (4)
Bad	0 (0)	0 (0)
Very bad	0 (0)	0 (0)
Other (too young)	5	3
Overall how well could you assess/treat/checking the patient? (254 + 293) d			p = 0.0047	p = 0.040
Very good	56 (22)	43 (15)
Good	198 (78)	242 (83)
Neither good nor bad	0 (0)	7 (2)
Bad	0 (0)	1 (0)
Very bad	0 (0)	0 (0)
Sum score, mean(SD)	1.72 ± 0.38	1.82 ± 0.38	p = 0.0030	NA

UNN University Hospital of North Norway, RMC Regional Medical Centre

^a Values are number (percent) or mean ± SD

^b Test for equality between UNN and RMC using generalised estimating equations (GEE)

^c Test for equality between UNN and RMC using GEE with a logit link function and a binary response very god (yes/no)

^d Number of item response in UNN and RMC respectively