Differences in patient reported outcome measures for telehealth vs in-person appointments among people with diabetes using continuous glucose monitors

Amanda Rhynehart; Cathy Breen; Jillian Kinsella; Stephanie Garrigan; Orla Lovett; Isabelle Allen; Caroline O; Katherine O; Rodica Paven; Isha Sant; Ronan Canavan; Aizad Wan Mahmood

doi:10.1530/endoabs.115.P10

P10

Prev Next

Section Contents Cite

Endocrine Abstracts (2026) 115 P10 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.115.P10

IES2025 Research, Audit and Quality Improvement Projects Physical Posters (55 abstracts)

Differences in patient reported outcome measures for telehealth vs in-person appointments among people with diabetes using continuous glucose monitors

Amanda Rhynehart ¹ , Cathy Breen ¹ , Jillian Kinsella ¹ , Stephanie Garrigan ¹ , Orla Lovett ² , Isabelle Allen ¹ , Caroline O’Rourke ¹ , Katherine O’Reilly ¹ , Rodica Paven ¹ , Isha Sant ¹ , Ronan Canavan ¹ & Wan Aizad Wan Mahmood ¹

Author affiliations

¹Diabetes Service, St Columcille’s Hospital, Loughlinstown, Co Dublin, Ireland; ²Dexcom Ireland

The HSE Digital For Care Framework and ADA Standards of Care recommend offering telehealth to enhance patient-centred care access. In diabetes management, integrating technology and telehealth supports real-time data interpretation and shared decision-making, improving outcomes. We surveyed individuals with diabetes using continuous glucose monitors (CGM) attending a Level 3 Diabetes Service in Dublin, comparing experiences of telehealth and in-person care. The survey included items from the Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ), Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), and custom questions on travel and costs. An anonymous SurveyMonkey link was created with Dexcom Ireland support and distributed during clinics from September–November 2024. Data were analysed using Excel and Python. Eighty-seven participants responded. Among in-person attendees (n = 41), 70% drove (37% >30 km), and 48% travelled >30 minutes—an estimated carbon footprint of 11.52 kgCO2. Virtual appointments saved ~20 minutes on average due to short waiting time (69% waited <5 minutes). In-person visits cost ~C= 20 (food and parking); virtual visits had no associated cost. Annual/unpaid leave was taken for 33% of in-person and 31% of virtual visits. TSUQ showed high satisfaction (>3.7) for privacy, clinician engagement, and problem-solving but lower scores (<3.1) for equipment trust and perceived health benefit. DTSQ indicated low treatment burden, with no notable difference in treatment satisfaction or burden across in-person and virtual care Satisfaction was similar across care models, while virtual visits were more time- and cost-efficient. This cohort experienced low treatment burden with CGM and flexible clinician access. Addressing technical barriers could further expand telehealth adoption.