Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical practice, telemedicine emerged as an alternative to outpatient visits. However, it is not known how patients and physicians responded to an accelerated implementation of this model of medical care. Objective: The aim of this study is to report the system-wide accelerated implementation of telemedicine, compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person visits, and report provider perceptions. Methods: This study was conducted at the UC Christus Health Network, a large private academic health network in Santiago, Chile. The satisfaction of patients receiving telemedicine care in March and April 2020 was compared to those receiving in-person care during the same period (concurrent control group) as well as in March and April 2019 (retrospective control group). Patient satisfaction with in-person care was measured using the Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was assessed with an online survey assessing similar domains. Providers rated their satisfaction and responded to open-ended questions assessing challenges, strategies used to address challenges, the diagnostic process, treatment, and the patient-provider relationship. Results: A total of 3962 patients receiving telemedicine, 1187 patients from the concurrent control group, and 1848 patients from the retrospective control group completed the surveys. Satisfaction was very high with both telemedicine and in-person services. Overall, 263 physicians from over 41 specialties responded to the survey. During telemedicine visits, most providers felt their clinical skills were challenged (61.8%). Female providers felt more challenged than male providers (70.7% versus 50.9%, P=.002). Surgeons, obstetricians, and gynecologists felt their clinical skills were challenged the least, compared to providers from nonsurgical specialties (P<.001). Challenges related to the delivery modality, diagnostic process, and patient-provider relationship differed by provider specialty (P=.046, P<.001, and P=.02, respectively). Conclusions: Telemedicine implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic produced high patient and provider satisfaction. Specialty groups perceived the impact of this new mode of clinical practice differently.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome virus (SARS-CoV-2) is challenging global public health, due to an increasing demand for testing and the shortage of diagnostic supplies. Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the optimal sample for SARS-CoV2 diagnosis and sputum (SPT) has been proposed as an economic alternative. However, the temporal concordance of diagnosis in NPS and SPT has not been addressed. Methods: Through a longitudinal study we compared the shedding dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 RNA evaluated by RT-qPCR in serially collected SPT and NPS obtained from 82 ambulatory and hospitalized patients during acute infection and convalescence. The concordance during the follow-up and cost analysis between both collected specimens was evaluated. Findings: We analyzed 379 samples, 177 NPS and 202 SPT. The highest proportion of positive samples was detected within the first 15 days after the symptoms onset. The median time of positivity was higher for NPS (median= 25 days) than SPT (median= 21 days). There was no significant difference in the median RT-qPCR C _T values between both sample types. The temporal categorization of matched-paired samples indicated substantial correlation (r=0·6023) and substantial agreement (87·23%) during the first ten days since symptoms onset (kappa = 0·697). A cost analysis demonstrated a significant saving when the SPT specimen was used. Interpretation: Sputum is a feasible and cost-saving alternative to NPS, providing an equivalent value for the detection and follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Funding: Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) of Chile, NIH-NIAID USA.

BACKGROUND As the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical practice, telemedicine emerged as an alternative to outpatient visits. However, it is not known how patients and physicians responded to an accelerated implementation of this model of medical care. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to report the system-wide accelerated implementation of telemedicine, compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person visits, and report provider perceptions. METHODS This study was conducted at the UC Christus Health Network, a large private academic health network in Santiago, Chile. The satisfaction of patients receiving telemedicine care in March and April 2020 was compared to those receiving in-person care during the same period (concurrent control group) as well as in March and April 2019 (retrospective control group). Patient satisfaction with in-person care was measured using the Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was assessed with an online survey assessing similar domains. Providers rated their satisfaction and responded to open-ended questions assessing challenges, strategies used to address challenges, the diagnostic process, treatment, and the patient-provider relationship. RESULTS A total of 3962 patients receiving telemedicine, 1187 patients from the concurrent control group, and 1848 patients from the retrospective control group completed the surveys. Satisfaction was very high with both telemedicine and in-person services. Overall, 263 physicians from over 41 specialties responded to the survey. During telemedicine visits, most providers felt their clinical skills were challenged (61.8%). Female providers felt more challenged than male providers (70.7% versus 50.9%, P=.002). Surgeons, obstetricians, and gynecologists felt their clinical skills were challenged the least, compared to providers from nonsurgical specialties (P<.001). Challenges related to the delivery modality, diagnostic process, and patient-provider relationship differed by provider specialty (P=.046, P<.001, and P=.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Telemedicine implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic produced high patient and provider satisfaction. Specialty groups perceived the impact of this new mode of clinical practice differently.

Tele-oncology expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains central to cancer care, yet evidence on guideline adherence in tele-oncology is limited, particularly in Latin America. In Chile, the Explicit Health Guarantees (GES) program mandates oncology care standards but provides no process model for monitoring adherence. We evaluated the conformance and temporal performance of telemedicine-based oncology pathways against a guideline-derived reference model using process mining, based on event logs from 182 patients treated in 2020–2023 in a Chilean hospital network. Conformance was computed using PM4Py with token-based replay and alignment-based fitness, complemented by cohort, abstraction-level and robustness analyses with bootstrap confidence intervals and multiple-comparison-adjusted testing. Overall conformance was low (4.95% of cases fully conforming; mean alignment fitness 0.19, 95% CI 0.16–0.22) against a highly precise reference model (precision 0.90). Censoring-aware analyses showed that low conformance was driven predominantly by genuine structural deviations rather than incomplete observation alone. Event-level cohort signatures were observed, but patient-level analyses suggested that these patterns should be interpreted as exploratory. Crude differences in care duration by out-of-model activity status were largely explained by differential observation time after exposure adjustment. Process-mining conformance checking provides reproducible indicators for governing tele-oncology pathways when metrics are interpreted alongside methodological caveats.