{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026851851851851852, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005555555555555556, 'mean_word_length': 5.177142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Could a low-cost audio-visual link be useful in rheumatology?

We have investigated prospectively the diagnostic accuracy, specialist satisfaction and patient–specialist rapport of a low-cost audio-visual link between a junior doctor with a patient and a consultant rheumatologist. Using a telephone link and subsequently a video-phone link, 20 patients, with various rheumatological problems, were presented by a junior doctor to the consultant rheumatologist for provisional diagnosis. All patients were then seen face to face by the consultant, when a final diagnosis was made. An independent consultant rheumatologist made a ‘gold standard’ diagnosis. Thirty-five per cent of diagnoses were made correctly over the telephone and 40% over the video-phone – there was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy between these two methods of communication. Rapport over the video-phone was universally poor. Where it was important, clinical signs could not be visualized over the video-phone and in more than 85% of cases small joint swellings could not be seen clearly.