LAUSR

PURPOSE This study sought to investigate whether a significant difference exists in attendance, cancellations, and no-shows between in-person therapy and telepractice. The authors hypothesized that telepractice no-show and cancellation rates would be less than in-person no-show and cancellation rates. METHOD This retrospective study manually reviewed and analyzed attendance, no-show, and cancellation data over a 3-month span of in-person-only visits (September 2019-November 2019) and a 3-month span of telepractice visits (September 2020-November 2020) conducted at the Emory Voice Center, a tertiary care practice in urban Atlanta, Georgia. Additionally, data were collected for each patient's full course of therapy outside of the 3-month windows and analyzed for attendance, no-show, and cancellation patterns. RESULTS Data from 521 patients were available for review from the selected time frame. In 2019 (in-person), 157 patients met inclusion criteria, and in 2020 (telepractice), 176 patients were included. Therapy initiation, therapy attendance, and no-show rates had significant increases in the telepractice year, and cancellations made greater than 24 hr before the appointments had a significant decrease in the telepractice year. Furthermore, the overall course of therapy showed significantly fewer missed appointments and more attended appointments in the telepractice year. CONCLUSIONS Patients participating in voice therapy via telepractice are more likely to initiate treatment and attend treatment and less likely to cancel sessions compared with patients receiving treatment in person. These data combined with extant data on telepractice treatment efficacy indicate that telepractice should be considered standard of care and offered to all patients seeking treatment, as it removes many reported barriers to treatment.