Editorial Comment: Telehealth in Urology Beyond COVID-19

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Strup et al1 report on the prevalence of telemedicine within urology and the factors associated with offering this treatment modality. As one might expect, the use of telemedicine increased dramatically during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and in general, younger urologists were more likely than those who were older to offer telemedicine. Patients, in general, were open to receiving care through telemedicine, although over one-third desired in-person appointments. Most urologists offer telemedicine, although the proportion of care delivered through telemedicine likely varies by provider and practice. Moreover, these data, by design, focus on provider, not patient, perspectives. In recent years, the definition of “success” within medicine in general and urology in particular has evolved to increasingly incorporate the patient’s perspective. Patients “being open to” a treatment or modality should not be equated to that modality being preferred: for some, telemedicine may be better than no appointment, but not better than an in-person visit. It is critical to ensure that patients—particularly those who speak languages other than English or who live in areas with inconsistent internet service—are able to access care through their preferred modality and are satisfied with that care.2 As the authors say, telemedicine is “here to stay.” Whether telemedicine will be an alternative to or a substitution for in-person visits remains to be seen. That telemedicine was used by 14% of urologists to increase clinical access outside of working hours should not go unmentioned. Burnout is endemic in urology,3 and just as we must ensure that care through telemedicine and in the office are equally comprehensive, clinicians also need to recognize that work done outside of regular hours—even if “only” video visits—is still extra work. Construing telemedicine with “less” rather than “different” clinical work benefits neither the provider nor the patient.