在 COVID-19 大流行期间实施全系统远程医疗任务期间和之后,患者对远程医疗的体验。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Experience Pub Date : 2024-03-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23743735231216872
Nicholas Hyman, Maya Hamaker, Komal Lodaria, Hannah B Jackson, Kevin Chen, Taylor B Sewell
{"title":"在 COVID-19 大流行期间实施全系统远程医疗任务期间和之后,患者对远程医疗的体验。","authors":"Nicholas Hyman, Maya Hamaker, Komal Lodaria, Hannah B Jackson, Kevin Chen, Taylor B Sewell","doi":"10.1177/23743735231216872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines whether patients' telehealth experiences differed during a health system mandate for telehealth encounters due to the COVID-19 pandemic versus after the mandate was relaxed. Patient experience surveys from telehealth visits across 17 adult (age 18+) primary care sites at a large, urban public health system were analyzed during two periods: when a mandate was active (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) and when the mandate was relaxed and any appointment modality was available (July 1, 2020-November 30, 2021). Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) comparing top-box percentages of survey responses at multiple levels: individual questions, four domains, and all questions together as a composite. Key findings: Patients had higher odds of selecting top-box answers in the elective telehealth period for the Care Provider (1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.16]) and General Assessment (1.13 [1.02, 1.24]) domains and the survey composite (1.08 [1.04, 1.13]), but there was no difference for individual questions.Women reported more positive experiences during the elective telehealth period in the Access (1.22 [1.01, 1.47]), Care Provider (1.32 [1.17, 1.50]), and Telemedicine Technology (1.24 [1.04, 1.50]) domains.Our findings suggest that patients had better telehealth experiences when mandates were relaxed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Experience","volume":"11 ","pages":"23743735231216872"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938617/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Experiences With Telehealth During Versus After a System-Wide Telehealth Mandate During the COVID-19 Pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Hyman, Maya Hamaker, Komal Lodaria, Hannah B Jackson, Kevin Chen, Taylor B Sewell\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23743735231216872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study examines whether patients' telehealth experiences differed during a health system mandate for telehealth encounters due to the COVID-19 pandemic versus after the mandate was relaxed. Patient experience surveys from telehealth visits across 17 adult (age 18+) primary care sites at a large, urban public health system were analyzed during two periods: when a mandate was active (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) and when the mandate was relaxed and any appointment modality was available (July 1, 2020-November 30, 2021). Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) comparing top-box percentages of survey responses at multiple levels: individual questions, four domains, and all questions together as a composite. Key findings: Patients had higher odds of selecting top-box answers in the elective telehealth period for the Care Provider (1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.16]) and General Assessment (1.13 [1.02, 1.24]) domains and the survey composite (1.08 [1.04, 1.13]), but there was no difference for individual questions.Women reported more positive experiences during the elective telehealth period in the Access (1.22 [1.01, 1.47]), Care Provider (1.32 [1.17, 1.50]), and Telemedicine Technology (1.24 [1.04, 1.50]) domains.Our findings suggest that patients had better telehealth experiences when mandates were relaxed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"23743735231216872\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938617/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735231216872\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735231216872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了在 COVID-19 大流行导致医疗系统强制要求进行远程医疗会诊期间与强制要求放宽后,患者的远程医疗体验是否有所不同。研究分析了一个大型城市公共卫生系统的 17 个成人(18 岁以上)初级医疗点在两个时期内的远程医疗就诊患者体验调查:在规定有效期内(2020 年 3 月 1 日至 2020 年 6 月 30 日)和在规定放宽且可使用任何预约方式时(2020 年 7 月 1 日至 2021 年 11 月 30 日)。主要结果是在多个层面上比较调查回答的顶格百分比的几率比(ORs):单个问题、四个领域和所有问题的综合。主要研究结果在选择性远程保健期间,患者在护理提供者(1.09 [95% 置信区间 1.03, 1.16])和一般评估(1.13 [1.02, 1.24])领域以及综合调查(1.08 [1.04, 1.13])中选择顶格答案的几率更高,但在单个问题上没有差异。在选择性远程医疗期间,女性在获取(1.22 [1.01, 1.47])、护理提供者(1.32 [1.17, 1.50])和远程医疗技术(1.24 [1.04, 1.50])领域报告了更多积极体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient Experiences With Telehealth During Versus After a System-Wide Telehealth Mandate During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This study examines whether patients' telehealth experiences differed during a health system mandate for telehealth encounters due to the COVID-19 pandemic versus after the mandate was relaxed. Patient experience surveys from telehealth visits across 17 adult (age 18+) primary care sites at a large, urban public health system were analyzed during two periods: when a mandate was active (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) and when the mandate was relaxed and any appointment modality was available (July 1, 2020-November 30, 2021). Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) comparing top-box percentages of survey responses at multiple levels: individual questions, four domains, and all questions together as a composite. Key findings: Patients had higher odds of selecting top-box answers in the elective telehealth period for the Care Provider (1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.16]) and General Assessment (1.13 [1.02, 1.24]) domains and the survey composite (1.08 [1.04, 1.13]), but there was no difference for individual questions.Women reported more positive experiences during the elective telehealth period in the Access (1.22 [1.01, 1.47]), Care Provider (1.32 [1.17, 1.50]), and Telemedicine Technology (1.24 [1.04, 1.50]) domains.Our findings suggest that patients had better telehealth experiences when mandates were relaxed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Experience
Journal of Patient Experience HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
178
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Identifying the Barriers to Self-Wound Management in Singapore-A Preliminary Study in the Primary Healthcare Sector. Evaluating Patient Experiences with Patient-Centered and Inclusive Care in Academic Obstetrics and Gynecology Outpatient Clinics. "It was not normal, and I had to find a doctor and tell him." Kenyan Women's Response to Cervical Cancer Symptoms. Factors Associated With Psychiatry Consultation for Musculoskeletal Trauma Patients. Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1?
×
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