We thank Mantese et al. for their interest in our publication and for sharing their opinions about the pros and cons of remote healthcare provision.
In our article, a large and diverse cohort of patients with movement disorders had their say about their telemedicine experience. 1 The results were unanimous—they wanted to come back and see the doctor face to face. As we discussed, this was at odds with the prevailing sentiment in the medical literature, which insisted that that this was the dawn of a new age of “remote” medicine. The reasons behind this discrepancy are legion, and this gap in opinion has indeed been the source of much debate in the medical community.
One important issue, as highlighted by Mantese et al., is that telemedicine should be applied in a patient and specialty‐specific fashion. It may well work for patients with epilepsy and multiple sclerosis but is of questionable value in movement disorder practice, where astute observation of clinical phenomenology is key to ensuring accurate diagnosis and appropriate management.
Second, some question whether the differences may relate to the chosen remote communication modalities. However, in our cohort, there was no difference in perception of telemedicine between those receiving phone versus video appointments. 1
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, shrouded vested interests may mean that the greatest “benefits” of telemedicine are not actually for the patient. Many proponents of telemedicine laud high levels of “satisfaction,” inappropriately conflating this to a measure of quality of care. In fact, data now show that the quality of remote consultations is inferior to that of face‐to‐face visits. 2 , 3 Mantese and others also speak of the “efficiency” of telemedicine. On the one hand, if throughput, performance metrics, and the speed of healthcare “transactions” are being considered, then remote medicine may well hold its own. If, on the other hand, one desires diagnostic accuracy, quality care, warmth, and compassion, then face‐to‐face care is clearly superior.
As the pandemic exemplified, there are situations where telemedicine might be desirable. However, on the whole, we believe that telemedicine is a second‐best option in movement disorder practice; our patients agree. William Osler famously remarked, “Listen to your patient; he is telling you the diagnosis.” Perhaps we should take note.
Author Roles
(1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing of the First Draft, B. Review and Critique.
I.R.: 1A, 1B, 2B
E.M.: 1A, 1B, 2A
I.C: 1B, 1C, 2B
A.J.L: 1A, 2B
K.P.B.: 1A, 2B
E.M.: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B
Disclosures
Ethical Compliance Statement: Our original study was approved by the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery service evaluation committee (ref: 32‐202,122‐SE). Informed consent was obtained. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.
Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest: None of the authors report any conflict of interest or financial disclosures in relation to this article.
Financial Disclosures for the Previous 12 Months: A.J.L. is funded by the Reta Lila Weston Institute of Neurological Studies, University College London, Institute of Neurology and reports consultancies from Britannia Pharmaceuticals and BIAL Portela. He also reports grants and/or research support from the Frances and Renee Hock Fund and honoraria from Britannia Pharmaceuticals, BIAL, STADA, UCB, and Nordiclnfu Care. K.P.B. holds research grants from EU Horizon 2020 and has received honoraria to speak at meetings or to attend advisory boards from Ipsen, Cavion, Allergan, Teva Lundbeck, and Bial pharmaceutical companies. He also receives royalties from Oxford University Press and a stipend for Movement Disorders Clinical Practice editorship. E. Mulroy is funded by the Edmond J. Safra Foundation. He also receives research support from the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. I.R., I.C., and E. Menozzi report no disclosures.
Relevant disclosures and conflicts of interest are listed at the end of this article.
References
- 1. Rajapakshe I, Menozzi E, Cunha I, Lees AJ, Bhatia KP, Mulroy E. Patients' postjudice of tele‐neurology for movement disorders. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2022;9(4):446–451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hammersley V, Donaghy E, Parker R, et al. Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face‐to‐face consultations: a non‐randomised, quasi‐experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2019;69(686):e595–e604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Graf A, Koh CH, Caldwell G, et al. Quality in clinical consultations: a cross‐sectional study. Clin Pract 2022;12(4):545–556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]