Identifying virtual care modality in electronic health record data

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Learning Health Systems Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1002/lrh2.10411
Annie E. Larson, Kurt C. Stange, John Heintzman, Yui Nishiike, Brenda M. McGrath, Melinda M. Davis, S. Marie Harvey
{"title":"Identifying virtual care modality in electronic health record data","authors":"Annie E. Larson,&nbsp;Kurt C. Stange,&nbsp;John Heintzman,&nbsp;Yui Nishiike,&nbsp;Brenda M. McGrath,&nbsp;Melinda M. Davis,&nbsp;S. Marie Harvey","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Virtual care increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific modality of virtual care (video, audio, eVisits, eConsults, and remote patient monitoring) has important implications for the accessibility and quality of care, but rates of use are relatively unknown. Methods for identifying virtual care modalities, especially in electronic health records (EHR) are inconsistent. This study (a) developed a method to identify virtual care modalities using EHR data and (b) described the distribution of these modalities over a 3-year study period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>EHR data from 316 primary care safety net clinics throughout the study period (4/1/2020-3/31/2023) were included. Visit type (in-person vs virtual) by adults &gt;18 years old were classified. Expert consultation informed the development of two algorithms to classify virtual care visit modalities; these algorithms prioritized different EHR data elements. We conducted descriptive analyses comparing algorithms and the frequency of virtual care modalities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Agreement between the algorithms was 96.5% for all visits and 89.3% for virtual care visits. The majority of disagreement between the algorithms was among encounters scheduled as audio-only but billed as a video visit. Restricting to visits where the algorithms agreed on visit modality, there were 2-fold more audio-only than video visits.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Visit modality classification varies depending upon which data in the EHR are prioritized. Regardless of which algorithm is utilized, safety net clinics rely on audio-only and video visits to provide care in virtual visits. Elimination of reimbursement for audio visits may exacerbate existing inequities in care for low-income patients.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"8 S1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10411","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Virtual care increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific modality of virtual care (video, audio, eVisits, eConsults, and remote patient monitoring) has important implications for the accessibility and quality of care, but rates of use are relatively unknown. Methods for identifying virtual care modalities, especially in electronic health records (EHR) are inconsistent. This study (a) developed a method to identify virtual care modalities using EHR data and (b) described the distribution of these modalities over a 3-year study period.

Methods

EHR data from 316 primary care safety net clinics throughout the study period (4/1/2020-3/31/2023) were included. Visit type (in-person vs virtual) by adults >18 years old were classified. Expert consultation informed the development of two algorithms to classify virtual care visit modalities; these algorithms prioritized different EHR data elements. We conducted descriptive analyses comparing algorithms and the frequency of virtual care modalities.

Results

Agreement between the algorithms was 96.5% for all visits and 89.3% for virtual care visits. The majority of disagreement between the algorithms was among encounters scheduled as audio-only but billed as a video visit. Restricting to visits where the algorithms agreed on visit modality, there were 2-fold more audio-only than video visits.

Conclusion

Visit modality classification varies depending upon which data in the EHR are prioritized. Regardless of which algorithm is utilized, safety net clinics rely on audio-only and video visits to provide care in virtual visits. Elimination of reimbursement for audio visits may exacerbate existing inequities in care for low-income patients.

Abstract Image

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
从电子健康记录数据中识别虚拟护理模式
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,虚拟医疗急剧增加。虚拟医疗的具体模式(视频、音频、电子就诊、电子会诊和远程患者监护)对医疗服务的可及性和质量有着重要影响,但使用率却相对未知。识别虚拟医疗模式,尤其是电子健康记录(EHR)中的虚拟医疗模式的方法并不一致。本研究(a)开发了一种使用电子健康记录数据识别虚拟医疗模式的方法,(b)描述了这些模式在3年研究期内的分布情况。对 18 岁以上成年人的就诊类型(亲自就诊与虚拟就诊)进行了分类。通过专家咨询,我们制定了两种算法来对虚拟医疗就诊方式进行分类;这些算法优先考虑不同的 EHR 数据元素。我们对算法和虚拟医疗模式的频率进行了描述性分析。算法之间的一致性在所有就诊中为 96.5%,在虚拟医疗就诊中为 89.3%。在所有就诊中,算法之间的一致率为 96.5%,在虚拟护理就诊中,算法之间的一致率为 89.3%。算法之间的大部分分歧出现在仅安排了音频就诊但作为视频就诊计费的就诊中。仅限于算法就就诊方式达成一致的就诊,纯音频就诊是视频就诊的 2 倍。无论采用哪种算法,安全网诊所都依靠纯音频和视频就诊来提供虚拟就诊护理。取消对音频就诊的报销可能会加剧低收入患者就诊中现有的不公平现象。
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
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Envisioning public health as a learning health system Thanks to our peer reviewers Learning health systems to implement chronic disease prevention programs: A novel framework and perspectives from an Australian health service The translation-to-policy learning cycle to improve public health
×
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