Telemedicine reports最新文献

Background: We aimed to characterize patient experience with virtual care across medical specialties using validated survey data. Primary objective: to determine whether experience varied by visit modality (virtual vs. in-person) and whether relationships persisted after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Secondarily, among physicians with sufficient data, we compared virtual versus in-person patient experience scores at the physician level and identified characteristics associated with better experience scores for virtual care.

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of administrative databases from a large New England health care system, including all ambulatory visits from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 with patient experience scores recorded. We compared experience between virtual and in-person at the visit level (score: 0-10) and the physician level for likelihood of recommending the physician to friends or family. We used a series of cross-classified hierarchical models with visits grouped by patient and by physician to decompose sources of variation. Among physicians with sufficient data, we compared physicians with higher virtual versus higher in-person net promoter score (NPS).

Results: Of 378,472 visits performed by 3368 physicians, 86,878 (23%) were conducted virtually. Most scored ≥9 for either modality, with a small preference for virtual versus in-person care (9.6 vs. 9.5, p < 0.001). We found that more variation in scores was explained by patient than by physician (22.9% vs. 3%). Visit modality was of minimal explanatory value. Most physicians' virtual and in-person NPS were similar, and virtual visit volume was not associated.

Conclusions: We found robust evidence for the parity of patient experience between virtual and in-person modalities across specialties.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic leveraged telemedicine worldwide mainly due to the need for social distancing, patient safety, and infection prevention. The Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP) was a key reference site in the treatment of COVID-19 severe cases in the country. To continue patient's health care, it became necessary to increase the number of teleconsultations and standardize it institutionally. Herein, we briefly described how the HCFMUSP improved the teleconsultation health care service during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the implementation of important innovations and the throughout standardization process, including patients and professional workflow. We also detailed the methodology used to implement or improve teleconsultation in a medical/multidisciplinary specialty at HCFMUSP. All these efforts made the HCFMUSP reach the goal of converting 15% of all face-to-face consultations into teleconsultations only in 2021. In addition, there were more than 370,000 teleconsultations until the end of 2022. Our experience has shown that having a supporting team, a digital certification process, and the data integration were key factors toward the successful implementation of the teleconsultation services. We believe that progressing toward teleconsultation will improve the population covered by health care services in Brazil, as well as contribute to a reduction of waiting time, and solving costs to health care institutions and patients. We expect this report of our experience in teleconsultation implementation could inspire and guide other health care institutions in the development of telemedicine.

Background: COVID saw a significant increase in the use of virtual care, supporting its utility and its benefits. It also revealed that unfortunately there are limitations and gaps we still need to address, including inequitable access to digitally enabled health care tools.

Methods: On November 8, 2022, the Mass General Brigham held the Third Annual Virtual Care Symposium: Demystifying Clinical Appropriateness in Virtual Care and What's Ahead for Pay Parity. One panel addressed digital health equity and key points are summarized here.

Results: Four experts discussed the key domains of digital equity and inclusion in the session titled "Achieving Digital Health Equity: Is it a One-Size-Fits-All Approach or Personalized Patient Experience?" These included lessons from strategies and tactics being used by hospitals and health systems to address digital equity issues; and opportunities to achieve digital health equity for specific populations (e.g., Medicaid).

Conclusions: Understanding the drivers of digital health disparities can help organizations and health care systems develop and test strategies to reduce them and improve access to quality health care through digitally enabled technologies and delivery channels.

Background: To overcome vast variations in Community Health Worker (CHW) training, investigators for the CHW Core Consensus Project (CCCP) derived three types of CHW (Category 1, 2, 3) and established competencies for each category. However, studies are needed that implement these competencies in real-world settings.

Objective: Using the six competency domains of the CCCP as a theoretical backbone, we developed and evaluated a training for Category 1 CHWs, individuals whose focus is on community outreach and advocacy.

Methods: We developed five telehealth-based, bilingual (Spanish/English) training sessions and implemented them among Category 1 Latino(a) CHWs. We measured the number of CHWs who achieved ≥70% correct on a domain-based posttest, attendance, and qualitative feedback.

Results: All (18/18) CHWs achieved at least 70% on the posttest (mean: 93.7%; range 73.3-100%). Training attendance was 98.9%. Using a six-point scale, CHWs reported high levels of satisfaction overall (5.72 ± 0.57/6.0), with telehealth (5.72 ± 0.58/6.0), effectiveness of teaching strategies/methods (5.89 ± 0.32/6.0), achieving training objectives (5.96 ± 0.15/6.0), knowledge improvement (5.72 ± 0.57/6.0), and interest (5.78 ± 0.43/6.0).

Conclusion: We successfully developed and evaluated a bilingual training program for Category 1 CHWs to address core competency gaps. High CHW attendance reinforces the value of telehealth modalities and their potential to increase the reach for CHW training. To overcome gaps in chronic disease training, investigations are needed to address additional CHW trainings.

Trial registration: NCT04835493.

Background: A steep increase in the use of delivery of virtual care occurred during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) because of easing up of payment and coverage restrictions. With the end of PHE, there is uncertainty regarding continued coverage and payment parity for the virtual care services.

Methods: On November 8, 2022, The Mass General Brigham held the Third Annual Virtual Care Symposium: Demystifying Clinical Appropriateness in Virtual Care and What's Ahead for Pay Parity.

Results: In one of the panels, experts from Mayo Clinic led by Dr. Bart Demaerschalk discussed key issues related to "Payment and Coverage Parity for Virtual Care and In-Person Care: How Do We Get There?" The discussions centered around current policies around payment and coverage parity for virtual care, including state licensure laws for virtual care delivery and the current evidence base regarding outcomes, costs, and resource utilization associated with virtual care. The panel discussion ended with highlighting next steps targeting policymakers, payers, and industry groups to help strengthen the case for parity.

Conclusions: To ensure the continued viability of virtual care delivery, legislators and insurers must address the coverage and payment parity between telehealth and in-person visits. This will require a renewed focus on research on clinical appropriateness, parity, equity and access, and economics of virtual care.

Background: The use of telehealth for the management and treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) has increased across the United States (U.S.), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth has the potential to reduce barriers to accessing health care and improve clinical outcomes. However, implementation, outcomes, and health equity implications related to these strategies are not well understood. The purpose of this review was to identify how telehealth is being used by U.S. health care professionals and health systems to manage hypertension and CVD and to describe the impact these telehealth strategies have on hypertension and CVD outcomes, with a special focus on social determinants of health and health disparities.

Methods: This study comprised a narrative review of the literature and meta-analyses. The meta-analyses included articles with intervention and control groups to examine the impact of telehealth interventions on changes to select patient outcomes, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure. A total of 38 U.S.-based interventions were included in the narrative review, with 14 yielding data eligible for the meta-analyses.

Results: The telehealth interventions reviewed were used to treat patients with hypertension, heart failure, and stroke, with most interventions employing a team-based care approach. These interventions utilized the expertise of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to collaborate on patient decisions and provide direct care. Among the 38 interventions reviewed, 26 interventions utilized remote patient monitoring (RPM) devices mostly for blood pressure monitoring. Half the interventions used a combination of strategies (e.g., videoconferencing and RPM). Patients using telehealth saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes such as blood pressure control, which were comparable to patients receiving in-person care. In contrast, the outcomes related to hospitalizations were mixed. There were also significant decreases in all-cause mortality when compared to usual care. No study explicitly focused on addressing social determinants of health or health disparities through telehealth for hypertension or CVD.

Conclusions: Telehealth appears to be comparable to traditional in-person care for managing blood pressure and CVD and may be seen as a complement to existing care options for some patients. Telehealth can also support team-based care delivery and may benefit patients and health care professionals by increasing opportunities for communication, engagement, and monitoring outside a clinical setting.

Contrary to common perception, telehealth is not simply a substitute for in-person care. With an array of modalities-live audio-video, asynchronous patient communication, and remote patient monitoring, to name a few-telehealth creates entirely new avenues of care delivery (Table 1). Although our current care model is reactive-relying on episodic visits to an office or hospital-telehealth allows us to be proactive, filling in the gaps to provide a continuum of care. Widespread uptake of telehealth has created fertile ground for long-overdue health system reform. In this study, we describe essential next steps: redefine telehealth clinical appropriateness, evolve payment models, provide necessary training, and reimagine the patient-physician interaction.

Background: Previous studies have found that the widespread implementation of telehealth for outpatient mental health treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with reduced no-show rates and increases in total number of appointments. However, it is unclear to what degree this is due to increased accessibility provided by telehealth, rather than to increased consumer demand for services fueled by the pandemic-related exacerbation of mental health needs. To shed light on this question, the present analysis examined changes in attendance rates for outpatient, home-, and school-based programs at a community mental health center in southeastern Michigan. Disparities in treatment utilization associated with socioeconomic status were also examined.

Methods: Two-proportion z-tests were conducted to examine changes in attendance rates, and Pearson correlations were calculated using the median income level and attendance rate by zip code to examine disparities in utilization associated with socioeconomic status.

Results: The proportion of appointments kept after telehealth implementation was statistically significantly higher for all outpatient programs, but not for any home-based programs. Specifically, absolute increases in the proportion of appointments kept ranged from 0.05 to 0.18 for outpatient programs, representing relative increases of 9.2% to 30.2%. Furthermore, before telehealth implementation, there was a strong positive correlation between income and attendance rate for all outpatient programs (ranging from r = 0.50 to 0.56). After telehealth implementation, there were no longer any significant correlations.

Discussion: Results highlight the utility of telehealth in increasing treatment attendance and mitigating disparities in treatment utilization associated with socioeconomic status. These findings are highly relevant to ongoing discussions surrounding the long-term fate of evolving insurance and regulatory guidelines pertaining to telehealth.