Afficher la notice abrégée

Poison control centres and alternative forms of communication: comparison of response rates between text message and telephone follow-up

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
dc.contributor.authorVAUCEL, Jules-Antoine
dc.contributor.authorENAUD, Nicolas
dc.contributor.authorPARADIS, Camille
dc.contributor.authorBRAGANCA, Coralie
dc.contributor.authorCOURTOIS, Arnaud
dc.contributor.authorLAN, Maxime
hal.structure.identifierBordeaux population health [BPH]
dc.contributor.authorGIL-JARDINE, Cedric
dc.contributor.authorENAUD, Raphael
dc.contributor.authorLABADIE, Magali
dc.contributor.authorDEGUIGNE, Marie
dc.contributor.authorLE ROUX, Gael
dc.contributor.authorDESCATHA, Alexis
dc.contributor.authorAZZOUZ, Ramy
dc.contributor.authorNISSE, Patrick
dc.contributor.authorPATAT, Anne-Marie
dc.contributor.authorPARET, Nathalie
dc.contributor.authorBLANC-BRISSET, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorNARDON, Audrey
dc.contributor.authorDE HARO, Luc
dc.contributor.authorSIMON, Nicolas
dc.contributor.authorDELCOURT, Nicolas
dc.contributor.authorPELISSIER, Fanny
dc.contributor.authorTOURNOUD, Christine
dc.contributor.authorPUSKARCZYK, Emmanuel
dc.contributor.authorLANGRAND, Jerome
dc.contributor.authorLABORDE-CASTEROT, Herve
dc.contributor.authorCARE, Weniko
dc.contributor.authorVODOVAR, Dominique
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-15T14:14:15Z
dc.date.available2022-04-15T14:14:15Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-21
dc.identifier.issn1556-9519 (Electronic) 1556-3650 (Linking)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/136647
dc.description.abstractEnINTRODUCTION: In recent years, the number of patients managed by poison control centres (PCCs) has increased without a proportional increase in the number of physicians. To improve efficiency without neglecting patient follow-up, some PCCs have begun using text messages. We evaluated the difference in response rates between text messaging and traditional telephone follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, monocentric, non-randomised cohort study was conducted using data from calls made by the New Aquitaine PCC between February 27, 2019, and March 31, 2019. Patients were contacted up to three times by a phone call or short message service (SMS). RESULTS: For the analysis, 823 patients were included. At the end of follow-up, the response rates were similar in the phone call and SMS group (94 vs. 94%; p = 0.76) with median [interquartile range] response times of 0 min [0; 27 min] and 29 min [6; 120 min], respectively. The response rates did not differ in subgroups stratified according to sex, self-poisoning vs. relative response, age class, and solicitation during working hours vs. outside of working hours (all p > 0.5). Moreover, health practitioners required 2.4-fold more time to call than to send text messages (p < 0.001), and all practitioners were satisfied or very satisfied with text messaging implementation. CONCLUSION: Patients had good adherence to text messages. Text messages are easy to use, rapid, and allow the physician to easily prioritise follow-up without occupying the emergency line. Additionally, the costs of installation and maintenance are low for text message systems; these low costs facilitate the implementation of such services in various medical situations.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.subject.enPoison control centers
dc.subject.enText messaging
dc.subject.enPublic health
dc.subject.enTelemedicine
dc.subject.enHealth information exchange
dc.title.enPoison control centres and alternative forms of communication: comparison of response rates between text message and telephone follow-up
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/15563650.2022.2051537en_US
dc.subject.halSciences du Vivant [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologieen_US
dc.identifier.pubmed35311427en_US
bordeaux.journalClinical Toxicologyen_US
bordeaux.page1-7en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesBordeaux Population Health Research Center (BPH) - UMR 1219en_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionINSERMen_US
bordeaux.teamAHEAD_BPHen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
hal.identifierhal-03643341
hal.version1
hal.date.transferred2022-04-15T14:14:18Z
hal.exporttrue
dc.rights.ccPas de Licence CCen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&amp;rft.jtitle=Clinical%20Toxicology&amp;rft.date=2022-03-21&amp;rft.spage=1-7&amp;rft.epage=1-7&amp;rft.eissn=1556-9519%20(Electronic)%201556-3650%20(Linking)&amp;rft.issn=1556-9519%20(Electronic)%201556-3650%20(Linking)&amp;rft.au=VAUCEL,%20Jules-Antoine&amp;ENAUD,%20Nicolas&amp;PARADIS,%20Camille&amp;BRAGANCA,%20Coralie&amp;COURTOIS,%20Arnaud&amp;rft.genre=article


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

FichiersTailleFormatVue

Il n'y a pas de fichiers associés à ce document.

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée