Dataset Information

Adoption, feasibility and safety of a family medicine-led remote monitoring program for patients with COVID-19: a descriptive study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Virtual care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) allows providers to monitor COVID-19-positive patients with variable trajectories while reducing the risk of transmission to others and ensuring health care capacity in acute care facilities. The objective of this descriptive analysis was to assess the initial adoption, feasibility and safety of a family medicine-led remote monitoring program, COVIDCare@Home, to manage the care of patients with COVID-19 in the community.

Methods

COVIDCare@Home is a multifaceted, interprofessional team-based remote monitoring program developed at an ambulatory academic centre, the Women's College Hospital in Toronto. A descriptive analysis of the first cohort of patients admitted from Apr. 8 to May 11, 2020, was conducted. Lessons from the implementation of the program are described, focusing on measure of adoption (number of visits per patient total, with a physician or with a nurse; length of follow-up), feasibility (received an oximeter or thermometer; consultation with general internal medicine, social work or mental health, pharmacy or acute ambulatory care unit) and safety (hospitalizations, mortality and emergency department visits).

Results

The COVIDCare@Home program cared for a first cohort of 97 patients (median age 41 yr, 67% female) with 415 recorded virtual visits. Patients had a median time from positive testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to first appointment of 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) days, with a median virtual follow-up time of 8 (IQR 5-10) days. A total of 4 (4%) had an emergency department visit, with no patients requiring hospitalization and no deaths; 16 (16%) of patients required support with mental and social health needs.

Interpretation

A family medicine-led, team-based remote monitoring program can safely manage the care of outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. Virtual care approaches, particularly those that support patients with more complex health and social needs, may be an important part of ongoing health system efforts to manage subsequent waves of COVID-19 and other diseases.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034257 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVIDCare@Home (CC@H) is a multifaceted, interprofessional team-based remote monitoring program led by family medicine for patients diagnosed with COVID-19, based at Women's College Hospital (WCH), an ambulatory academic center in Toronto, Canada. CC@H offers virtual visits (phone and video) to address the clinical needs and broader social determinants of the health of patients during the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, including finding a primary care provider (PCP) and support for food insecurity.ObjectiveThe objective of this evaluation is to understand the implementation and quality outcomes of CC@H within the Quadruple Aim framework of patient experience, provider experience, cost, and population health.MethodsThis multimethod cross-sectional evaluation follows the Quadruple Aim framework to focus on implementation and service quality outcomes, including feasibility, adoption, safety, effectiveness, equity, and patient centeredness. These measures were explored using clinical and service utilization data, patient experience data (an online survey and a postdischarge questionnaire), provider experience data (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), and stakeholder interviews. Descriptive analysis was conducted for surveys and utilization data. Deductive analysis was conducted for interviews and focus groups, mapping to implementation and quality domains. The Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg) measured the proportion of underserved patients accessing CC@H.ResultsIn total, 3412 visits were conducted in the first 8 months of the program (April 8-December 8, 2020) for 616 discrete patients, including 2114 (62.0%) visits with family physician staff/residents and 149 (4.4%) visits with social workers/mental health professionals. There was a median of 5 (IQR 4) visits per patient, with a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR 27). The net promoter score was 77. In addition, 144 (23.3%) of the patients were in the most marginalized populations based on the residential postal code (as per ON-Marg). Interviews with providers and stakeholders indicated that the program continued to adapt to meet the needs of patients and the health care system.ConclusionsFuture remote monitoring should integrate support for addressing the social determinants of health and ensure patient-centered care through comprehensive care teams.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the Clinical Learning Environment Review's recommendations of their use, patient safety event reporting systems are underutilized by residents.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify perceived barriers to event reporting amongst internal medicine residents and implement a targeted quality improvement initiative to address the identified barriers and increase overall resident event report rates.MethodsA total of 94 Internal Medicine (IM) residents participated in the educational intervention in 2018. We measured residents' perception of barriers to event reporting and employed the results of the questionnaire to create a skill-based educational workshop. We conducted the plan-do-study-act model to test a structured educational intervention and its effectiveness on pre-post IM residents' event report rates and compared it to report rates of Non-Internal Medicine (Non-IM) residents. Additionally, we assessed pre-post intervention knowledge, skills, and attitudes in event reporting.Results94/94 (100%) of IM residents had a significantly higher median percent of patient safety event reporting when compared to pre-intervention (23.6% compared to 5.88%, p-value = 0.0030) and when compared to Non-IM residents (23.6% compared to 5.31%, p-value = 0.0002). Residents performed better on the post-test compared to the pre-test (90% compared to 30%, p-value = 0.0001) for knowledge. 100% of the critical action items were completed and 90% of participants reported their perception of the event reporting process improved.ConclusionsBy elucidating common reasons why residents are not reporting patient safety events, a specific intervention can be created to target the identified impediments and improve resident event reporting.AbbreviationsIM: Internal Medicine IM; Non-IM: Non-Internal Medicine; IOM: Institute of Medicine I; ACGME CLER: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review; GME: Graduate Medical Education; IRB: Institutional Review Board; PDSA: Plan, Do, Study, Act.

Project description:BackgroundRegular participation in physical activity can prevent many chronic health conditions. Computerized self-management programs are effective clinical tools to support patient participation in physical activity. This pilot study sought to develop and evaluate an online interface for primary care providers to refer patients to an Internet-mediated walking program called Stepping Up to Health (SUH) and to monitor participant progress in the program.MethodsIn Phase I of the study, we recruited six pairs of physicians and medical assistants from two family practice clinics to assist with the design of a clinical interface. During Phase II, providers used the developed interface to refer patients to a six-week pilot intervention. Provider perspectives were assessed regarding the feasibility of integrating the program into routine care. Assessment tools included quantitative and qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews, surveys, and online usage logs.ResultsIn Phase I, 13 providers used SUH and participated in two interviews. Providers emphasized the need for alerts flagging patients who were not doing well and the ability to review participant progress. Additionally, providers asked for summary views of data across all enrolled clinic patients as well as advertising materials for intervention recruitment. In response to this input, an interface was developed containing three pages: 1) a recruitment page, 2) a summary page, and 3) a detailed patient page. In Phase II, providers used the interface to refer 139 patients to SUH and 37 (27%) enrolled in the intervention. Providers rarely used the interface to monitor enrolled patients. Barriers to regular use of the intervention included lack of integration with the medical record system, competing priorities, patient disinterest, and physician unease with exercise referrals. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that patients increased walking by an average of 1493 steps/day from pre- to post-intervention (t = (36) = 4.13, p < 0.01).ConclusionsProviders successfully referred patients using the SUH provider interface, but were less willing to monitor patient compliance in the program. Patients who completed the program significantly increased their step counts. Future research is needed to test the effectiveness of integrating SUH with clinical information systems over a longer evaluation period.

Project description:Introduction In order to provide baseline data on genetic testing as a key element of personalised medicine (PM), Canadian physicians were surveyed to determine roles, perceptions and experiences in this area. The survey measured attitudes, practice, observed benefits and impacts, and barriers to adoption. Methods A self-administered survey was provided to Canadian oncologists, cardiologists and family physicians and responses were obtained online, by mail or by fax. The survey was designed to be exploratory. Data were compared across specialties and geography. Results The overall response rate was 8.3%. Of the respondents, 43%, 30% and 27% were family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists, respectively. A strong majority of respondents agreed that genetic testing and PM can have a positive impact on their practice; however, only 51% agreed that there is sufficient evidence to order such tests. A low percentage of respondents felt that they were sufficiently informed and confident practicing in this area, although many reported that genetic tests they have ordered have benefited their patients. Half of the respondents agreed that genetic tests that would be useful in their practice are not readily available. A lack of practice guidelines, limited provider knowledge and lack of evidence-based clinical information were cited as the main barriers to practice. Differences across provinces were observed for measures relating to access to testing and the state of practice. Differences across specialties were observed for the state of practice, reported benefits and access to testing. Conclusions Canadian physicians recognise the benefits of genetic testing and PM; however, they lack the education, information and support needed to practice effectively in this area. Variability in practice and access to testing across specialties and across Canada was observed. These results support a need for national strategies and resources to facilitate physician knowledge, training and practice in PM.