Dataset Information

Rapid Implementation of Video Visits in Neurology During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care.

Objective

To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability.

Methods

Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020.

Results

Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination.

Conclusions

Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

SUBMITTER: Saliba-Gustafsson EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7732357 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To describe and explore pediatric ambulatory video visit use by patient characteristics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study with integration at the design and methods level. Phase 1 was a cross-sectional analysis of general and specialty pediatric ambulatory encounters to profile the use of video visits by patient characteristics. We performed descriptive analyses for each variable of interest and estimated a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze factors associated with the odds of having a video visit. Phase 2 was a qualitative exploration using semi-structured interviews with healthcare team members to understand the contextual factors influencing video visit usage. We used an interview guide to solicit information related to general perceptions about ambulatory video visits, reactions to the quantitative phase data, and strategies for optimizing equitable reach of video visits. Data were analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive analysis. Results: Among the 5,464 pediatric ambulatory encounters completed between March 11 and June 30, 2020, 2,127 were video visits. Patient factors associated with lower odds of having a video visit rather than an in-person visit included being Spanish-speaking (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.20-0.37) and other non-English-speaking (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.75) in comparison to English-speaking. Patients with public insurance also had a lower odds of having a video visit in comparison to privately insured patients (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.88). Qualitative interviews identified five solution-based themes: (1) Promoting video visits in a way that reaches all patient families; (2) Offering video visits to all patient families; (3) Mitigating digital literacy barriers; (4) Expanding health system resources to support families' specific needs; and (5) Engaging and empowering health system personnel to expand video visit access. Conclusion: We identified differences in pediatric ambulatory video visit use by patient characteristics, with lower odds of video visit use among non-English-speaking and publicly insured patients. The mixed-methods approach allowed for the perspectives of our interview participants to contextualize the finding and lead to suggestions for improvement. Both our findings and the approach can be used by other health systems to ensure that all patients and families receive equal video visit access.

Project description:BackgroundAs the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical practice, telemedicine emerged as an alternative to outpatient visits. However, it is not known how patients and physicians responded to an accelerated implementation of this model of medical care.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to report the system-wide accelerated implementation of telemedicine, compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person visits, and report provider perceptions.MethodsThis study was conducted at the UC Christus Health Network, a large private academic health network in Santiago, Chile. The satisfaction of patients receiving telemedicine care in March and April 2020 was compared to those receiving in-person care during the same period (concurrent control group) as well as in March and April 2019 (retrospective control group). Patient satisfaction with in-person care was measured using the Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was assessed with an online survey assessing similar domains. Providers rated their satisfaction and responded to open-ended questions assessing challenges, strategies used to address challenges, the diagnostic process, treatment, and the patient-provider relationship.ResultsA total of 3962 patients receiving telemedicine, 1187 patients from the concurrent control group, and 1848 patients from the retrospective control group completed the surveys. Satisfaction was very high with both telemedicine and in-person services. Overall, 263 physicians from over 41 specialties responded to the survey. During telemedicine visits, most providers felt their clinical skills were challenged (61.8%). Female providers felt more challenged than male providers (70.7% versus 50.9%, P=.002). Surgeons, obstetricians, and gynecologists felt their clinical skills were challenged the least, compared to providers from nonsurgical specialties (P<.001). Challenges related to the delivery modality, diagnostic process, and patient-provider relationship differed by provider specialty (P=.046, P<.001, and P=.02, respectively).ConclusionsTelemedicine implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic produced high patient and provider satisfaction. Specialty groups perceived the impact of this new mode of clinical practice differently.

Project description:BackgroundThe pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has caused disruptions in ongoing clinical trials and is expected to accelerate interest in conducting research studies remotely.ObjectiveA quasi-experimental, mixed methods approach was used to examine the rates of visit completion as well as the opinions and experiences of participants enrolled in an ongoing clinical trial of smoking cessation who were required to change from in-person clinic visits to remote visits using video or telephone conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsFor quantitative comparisons, we used a quasi-experimental design, comparing a cohort of participants followed during the pandemic (n=23, COVID-19 cohort) to a comparable cohort of participants followed over a similar time period in the calendar years 2018 and 2019 (n=51, pre-COVID-19 cohort) to examine the rates of completion of scheduled visits and biospecimen collection. For the qualitative component, interviews were conducted with participants who experienced the transition from in-person to remote visits.ResultsParticipants in the COVID-19 cohort completed an average of 83.6% of remote clinic visits (95% CI 73.1%-91.2%), which was not significantly different than the in-person completion rate of 89.8% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Participants in the COVID-19 cohort returned an average of 93.2% (95% CI 83.5%-98.1%) of saliva specimens for remote clinic visits completed, which was not significantly different than the in-person saliva specimen completion rate of 100% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Two broad themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the benefits of remote visits and (2) the challenges of remote counseling compared to in-person counseling. Despite limited experience with telehealth prior to this transition, most participants expressed a willingness to engage in remote visits in the future.ConclusionsEven in the context of a rapid transition from in-person to remote visits necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of visit completion and return of biospecimens remained high. Participants were generally accepting of the transition. Further research is needed to identify the optimal mix of in-person and remote visits beyond the pandemic context and to better understand how these changes may impact study outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03262662.

Project description:Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians' involvement in patients' end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19's catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians' demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents' demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during "peak-Covid," and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53-7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care.