Telemedicine decision-making in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Balancing patient agency and provider expertise

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Policy and Technology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100839
Kimberly A. Muellers , Katerina Andreadis , Rahma S. Mkuu , Jenny J. Lin , Carol R. Horowitz , Rainu Kaushal , Jessica S. Ancker
{"title":"Telemedicine decision-making in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Balancing patient agency and provider expertise","authors":"Kimberly A. Muellers ,&nbsp;Katerina Andreadis ,&nbsp;Rahma S. Mkuu ,&nbsp;Jenny J. Lin ,&nbsp;Carol R. Horowitz ,&nbsp;Rainu Kaushal ,&nbsp;Jessica S. Ancker","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the expansion of telemedicine use worldwide, introducing a new dimension of healthcare decision-making – choosing a visit format – not previously experienced by most patients or providers. To date, the pandemic's impact on decisions about using telemedicine versus in-person visits in primary care has not been fully explored. The purpose of this study was to examine patient and provider accounts of decision-making about the choice between telemedicine and in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Primary care providers and patients were recruited from four healthcare systems across three states in the United States. Participants completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences using telemedicine for primary care during the pandemic. Data pertaining to decision-making about telemedicine were examined as a secondary analysis using interpretive description.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-one providers and 65 patients completed interviews. Patients’ ability to choose their own visit format influenced their level of satisfaction with telemedicine care, while providers expressed concern about leaving visit format entirely up to their patients. Patients and providers generally agreed that telemedicine was well-suited for routine follow-ups, reviewing results, and medication management. However, in cases of urgent health problems, patients and providers differed in their criteria for determining what visit format is most appropriate but agreed that telemedicine could be a useful tool for “quick fixes” and for fast and effective triage.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Primary care patients and providers emphasized the importance of agency during care delivery and shared opportunities for effective triage via telemedicine. Further research should focus on developing tools to support shared healthcare decisions regarding telemedicine use under changing healthcare conditions, particularly for urgent health questions.</p></div><div><h3>Public Interest Summary</h3><p>The COVID-19 pandemic has increased telemedicine use around the world. This study looked at patient and provider decisions about using telemedicine versus in-person care during the pandemic. We asked 21 primary care providers and 65 patients from four healthcare systems across three U.S. states about their experiences using telemedicine during the pandemic. Patients were more satisfied if they were able to choose whether to have an in-person or video visit, while providers worried that allowing patients to choose the visit format could get in the way of care when patients need physical exams or laboratory testing. Patients and providers gave different reasons for choosing a visit format, but both agreed that telemedicine was useful for “quick fixes” and making decisions together in emergencies. Healthcare systems should create tools to help patients and providers decide when to use telemedicine, especially when managing urgent health issues.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":"13 2","pages":"Article 100839"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883724000029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the expansion of telemedicine use worldwide, introducing a new dimension of healthcare decision-making – choosing a visit format – not previously experienced by most patients or providers. To date, the pandemic's impact on decisions about using telemedicine versus in-person visits in primary care has not been fully explored. The purpose of this study was to examine patient and provider accounts of decision-making about the choice between telemedicine and in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Primary care providers and patients were recruited from four healthcare systems across three states in the United States. Participants completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences using telemedicine for primary care during the pandemic. Data pertaining to decision-making about telemedicine were examined as a secondary analysis using interpretive description.

Results

Twenty-one providers and 65 patients completed interviews. Patients’ ability to choose their own visit format influenced their level of satisfaction with telemedicine care, while providers expressed concern about leaving visit format entirely up to their patients. Patients and providers generally agreed that telemedicine was well-suited for routine follow-ups, reviewing results, and medication management. However, in cases of urgent health problems, patients and providers differed in their criteria for determining what visit format is most appropriate but agreed that telemedicine could be a useful tool for “quick fixes” and for fast and effective triage.

Conclusions

Primary care patients and providers emphasized the importance of agency during care delivery and shared opportunities for effective triage via telemedicine. Further research should focus on developing tools to support shared healthcare decisions regarding telemedicine use under changing healthcare conditions, particularly for urgent health questions.

Public Interest Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased telemedicine use around the world. This study looked at patient and provider decisions about using telemedicine versus in-person care during the pandemic. We asked 21 primary care providers and 65 patients from four healthcare systems across three U.S. states about their experiences using telemedicine during the pandemic. Patients were more satisfied if they were able to choose whether to have an in-person or video visit, while providers worried that allowing patients to choose the visit format could get in the way of care when patients need physical exams or laboratory testing. Patients and providers gave different reasons for choosing a visit format, but both agreed that telemedicine was useful for “quick fixes” and making decisions together in emergencies. Healthcare systems should create tools to help patients and providers decide when to use telemedicine, especially when managing urgent health issues.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 大流行期间初级保健中的远程医疗决策:平衡患者代理与医疗服务提供者的专业知识
目的 COVID-19 大流行促进了远程医疗在全球范围内的推广使用,为医疗决策引入了一个新的维度--选择就诊形式--这是大多数患者或医疗服务提供者以前从未经历过的。迄今为止,人们尚未充分探讨大流行对初级保健中使用远程医疗与亲自就诊决策的影响。本研究的目的是探讨在 COVID-19 大流行期间,患者和医疗服务提供者在选择远程医疗还是面对面就诊时的决策情况。方法从美国三个州的四个医疗保健系统中招募初级医疗服务提供者和患者。参与者完成了半结构化访谈,讲述了他们在大流行期间使用远程医疗进行初级保健的经历。结果21 名医疗服务提供者和 65 名患者完成了访谈。患者能够选择自己的就诊形式影响了他们对远程医疗的满意度,而医疗服务提供者则对完全由患者决定就诊形式表示担忧。患者和医疗服务提供者普遍认为,远程医疗非常适合常规随访、检查结果和药物管理。然而,在出现紧急健康问题时,患者和医疗服务提供者在确定何种就诊形式最合适的标准上存在分歧,但他们一致认为远程医疗可以成为 "快速解决问题 "和快速有效分诊的有用工具。结论初级医疗患者和医疗服务提供者都强调了在提供医疗服务过程中代理的重要性,并分享了通过远程医疗进行有效分诊的机会。进一步的研究应侧重于开发工具,以支持在不断变化的医疗条件下就远程医疗的使用做出共同的医疗决策,尤其是针对紧急的健康问题。本研究调查了患者和医疗服务提供者在大流行期间使用远程医疗与面对面医疗的决策。我们询问了来自美国三个州四个医疗保健系统的 21 名初级保健提供者和 65 名患者在大流行期间使用远程医疗的经验。如果患者能够选择亲自就诊还是视频就诊,他们会更满意;而医疗服务提供者则担心,如果允许患者选择就诊形式,可能会在患者需要体检或化验时妨碍医疗服务。患者和医疗服务提供者对选择就诊形式给出了不同的理由,但他们都认为远程医疗对于 "快速解决问题 "和在紧急情况下共同做出决定非常有用。医疗系统应开发工具,帮助患者和医疗服务提供者决定何时使用远程医疗,尤其是在处理紧急健康问题时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy and Technology
Health Policy and Technology Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
88 days
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments. HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology. Topics covered by HPT will include: - Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems - Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches - National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives - Cross-border eHealth including health tourism - The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare - Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies - Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies - Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making - Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in) - Regulation and health economics
期刊最新文献
Challenges of shared decision-making in virtual care: Whom should we care for, and how? Individual factors that affect laypeople's understanding of definitions of medical jargon An insight into the implementation, utilization, and evaluation of telemedicine e-consultation services in Egypt Multiple criteria qualitative value-based pricing framework “MARIE” for new drugs Assessing contributing and mediating factors of telemedicine on healthcare provider burnout
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1