Primary Care Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Simulated Patient Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Primary care practices have experienced major strains during the COVID-19 pandemic, such that patients newly seeking care may face potential barriers to timely visits.Objective
To quantify availability and wait times for new patient appointments in primary care and to describe how primary care practices are guiding patients with suspected COVID-19.Design
Trained callers conducted simulated patient calls to 800 randomly sampled primary care practices between September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020.Participants
We extracted complete primary care physician listings from large commercial insurance networks in four geographically dispersed states between September 10 and 14, 2020 (n=11,521). After excluding non-physician providers and removing duplicate phone numbers, we identified 2705 unique primary care physician practices from which we randomly sampled 200 practices in each region.Main measures
Primary care appointment availability, median wait time in days, and practice guidance to patients suspecting COVID-19 infection.Key results
Among 56% of listed practices that had accurate contact information listed in the directory, 84% offered a new patient in-person or virtual appointment. Median wait time was 10 days (IQR 3-26 days). The most common guidance in case of suspected COVID-19 was clinician consultation, which was offered in 41% of completed calls. Callers were otherwise directed to on-site testing (14%), off-site testing (24%), a COVID-19 hotline (8%), or an urgent care/emergency department (12%), while 2% of practices had no guidance to offer.Conclusions
Despite resource constraints, most reachable primary care practices offered timely new patient appointments as well as direct COVID-19 care. Pandemic mitigation strategies should account for and support the central role of primary care practices in the community-based pandemic response.
SUBMITTER: Kyle MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8075018 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required a shift in health care delivery platforms, necessitating a new reliance on telemedicine.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether inequities are present in telemedicine use and video visit use for telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, a retrospective medical record review was conducted from March 16 to May 11, 2020, of all patients scheduled for telemedicine visits in primary care and specialty ambulatory clinics at a large academic health system. Age, race/ethnicity, sex, language, median household income, and insurance type were all identified from the electronic medical record.Main outcomes and measuresA successfully completed telemedicine visit and video (vs telephone) visit for a telemedicine encounter. Multivariable models were used to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language, and the use of telemedicine visits, as well as video use specifically.ResultsA total of 148 402 unique patients (86 055 women [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [17.7] years) had scheduled telemedicine visits during the study period; 80 780 patients (54.4%) completed visits. Of 78 539 patients with completed visits in which visit modality was specified, 35 824 (45.6%) were conducted via video, whereas 24 025 (56.9%) had a telephone visit. In multivariable models, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.88] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.78] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70] for those aged ≥75 years), Asian race (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.73]), non-English language as the patient's preferred language (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]) were independently associated with fewer completed telemedicine visits. Older age (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.76-0.82] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.74-0.83] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.46-0.53] for those aged ≥75 years), female sex (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]), Black race (aOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]), Latinx ethnicity (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and lower household income (aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60] for income <$50 000; aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92], for $50 000-$100 000) were associated with less video use for telemedicine visits. These results were similar across medical specialties.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients scheduled for primary care and medical specialty ambulatory telemedicine visits at a large academic health system during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients, Asian patients, and non-English-speaking patients had lower rates of telemedicine use, while older patients, female patients, Black, Latinx, and poorer patients had less video use. Inequities in accessing telemedicine care are present, which warrant further attention.
| S-EPMC7772717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To understand and analyse the global impact of COVID-19 on outpatient services, inpatient care, elective surgery, and perioperative colorectal cancer care, a DElayed COloRectal cancer surgery (DECOR-19) survey was conducted in collaboration with numerous international colorectal societies with the objective of obtaining several learning points from the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on our colorectal cancer patients which will assist us in the ongoing management of our colorectal cancer patients and to provide us safe oncological pathways for future outbreaks.
| 2346925 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundTransitioning nonemergency, ambulatory medical care to virtual visits in light of the COVID-19 global pandemic has been a massive shift in philosophy and practice that naturally came with a steep learning curve for patients, physicians, and clinic administrators.ObjectiveWe undertook a multimethod study to understand the key factors associated with successful and less successful experiences of virtual specialist care, particularly as they relate to the patient experience of care.MethodsThis study was designed as a multimethod patient experience study using survey methods, descriptive qualitative interview methodology, and administrative virtual care data collected by the hospital decision support team. Six specialty departments participated in the study (endoscopy, orthopedics, neurology, hematology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology). All patients who could speak and read English and attended a virtual specialist appointment in a participating clinic at St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) between October 1, 2020, and January 30, 2021, were eligible to participate.ResultsDuring the study period, 51,702 virtual specialist visits were conducted in the departments that participated in the study. Of those, 96% were conducted by telephone and 4% by video. In both the survey and interview data, there was an overall consensus that virtual care is a satisfying alternative to in-person care, with benefits such as reduced travel, cost, time, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and increased convenience. Our analysis further revealed that the specific reason for the visit and the nature and status of the medical condition are important considerations in terms of guidance on where virtual care is most effective. Technology issues were not reported as a major challenge in our data, given that the majority of "virtual" visits reported by our participants were conducted by telephone, which is an important distinction. Despite the positive value of virtual care discussed by the majority of interview participants, 50% of the survey respondents still indicated they would prefer to see their physician in person.ConclusionsPatient experience data collected in this study indicate a high level of satisfaction with virtual specialty care, but also signal that there are nuances to be considered to ensure it is an appropriate and sustainable part of the standard of care.
| S-EPMC9239568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimManagement of diabetes care can be affected by COVID-19 pandemic control measures. This study aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic, during 17.03.2020-16.03.2021, on quality outcomes of diabetes care in general practice in Switzerland.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, diabetes mellitus patients (≥ 18 years) with at least one consultation at a general practitioner, during 17.03.2018-16.03.2019 (cohort 1) and 17.03.2019-16.03.2020 (cohort 2) were included and followed-up for two years. Quality indicators and outcomes of diabetes care, at patient and practitioner level, were compared before and during the pandemic. Logistic regression was performed to identify patient's risk factors for dropout from follow-up.ResultsData from 191 practices, 23,903 patients, cohort 1 and 25,092 patients, cohort 2, were analyzed. The fraction of patients lost to follow-up, attributable to the pandemic, was 28% (95% confidence interval: 25%, 30%). During the pandemic, compared to the previous year, regular measurement of weight, HbA1c, blood pressure and serum creatinine were less frequent and less patients per practitioner reached HbA1c and blood pressure target outcomes. Factors associated with continuity of care during the pandemic were: patient age 41-80 years, longer diabetes duration, diagnosis of hypertension or dyslipidemia, influenza vaccination during the last year. Risk factors for dropout were age > 80 and receiving only insulin as anti-diabetic medication.ConclusionA considerable quality reduction in diabetes mellitus care could be observed during the pandemic. Though the most vulnerable patients were not the most affected by the pandemic, key factors that might reduce dropout from follow-up were identified.
| S-EPMC9329414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes to healthcare, but few studies focus on ambulatory care during the early phase of the pandemic. We characterize veterans' ambulatory care experience, specifically access and satisfaction, early in the pandemic.MethodsWe employed a semi-structured telephone interview to capture quantitative and qualitative data from patients scheduled with a primary care provider between March 1 - June 30, 2020. Forty veterans were randomly identified at a single large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center. The interview guide utilized 56 closed and open-ended questions to characterize veterans' perceptions of access to and satisfaction with their primary care experience at VHA and non-VHA primary care sources. We also explored the context of veterans' daily lives during the pandemic. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and verbatim quotes using a matrix analysis.ResultsVeterans reported completing more appointments (mean 2.6 (SD 2.2)) than scheduled (mean 2.3 (SD 2.2)) mostly due to same-day or urgent visits, with a shift to telephone (mean 2.1 (SD 2.2)) and video (mean 1.5 (SD 0.6)). Among those who reported decreased access to care early in the pandemic (n = 27 (67%)), 15 (56%) cited administrative barriers ("The phone would hang up on me") and 9 (33%) reported a lack of provider availability ("They are not reaching out like they used to"). While most veterans (n = 31 (78%)) were highly satisfied with their VHA care (mean score 8.6 (SD 2.0 on a 0-10 scale), 9 (23%) reported a decrease in satisfaction since the pandemic. The six (15%) veterans who utilized non-VHA providers during the period of interest reported, on average, higher satisfaction ratings (mean 9.5 (SD 1.2)). Many veterans reported psychosocial effects such as the worsening of mental health (n = 6 (15%)), anxiety concerning the virus (n = 12 (30%)), and social isolation (n = 8 (20%), "I stay inside and away from people").ConclusionsWhile the number of encounters reported suggest adequate access and satisfaction, the comments regarding barriers to care suggest that enhanced approaches may be warranted to improve and sustain veteran perceptions of adequate access to and satisfaction with primary care during times of crisis.
| S-EPMC9491256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn increase in the number of people presenting to emergency departments (EDs) is contributing to ED overcrowding. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant reduction in the number of ED presentations in Australia, creating an opportunity to learn from patients' experiences of alternative management options.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to report on the use and experience of health services by Australian adults experiencing a health issue during the COVID-19 pandemic for which they would have presented at an ED prior to the pandemic.MethodsAn online survey was conducted in May 2020. Reported health issues were categorized using an existing classification system. Data collected included demographics, care pathways, levels of concern at times of health issue and survey completion, and patient-reported experiences with care.ResultsA total of 1289 eligible respondents completed the survey. Almost 25% (309/1289) of respondents avoided an ED presentation, of which 58% (179/309) used an alternative form of health care and 42% (130/309) self-managed. Respondents making face-to-face or telehealth appointments with their general practitioner (GP) reported high levels of ED avoidance (135/286, 47%) and mostly positive experiences of care provided by GPs. A high proportion of those who self-managed reported high levels of concern at the time of completing the survey (42/130, 32%).ConclusionsTelehealth consultations with GPs may be a more promotable alternative to the ED beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, providing easier access to a doctor with access to patients' medical histories than an appointment for a face-to-face consultation. GP telehealth consultations may also address barriers to accessing health care for those with potentially the greatest need. The reported use and positive experiences with GP telehealth appointments should inform further research on their appropriateness as an alternative to the ED.
| S-EPMC8428819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with cancer have been negatively impacted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as many of these individuals may be immunosuppressed and of older age. Additionally, cancer follow-up or imaging appointments have been delayed in many clinics around the world. Postponement of routine screening exams will result in delays in new cancer diagnoses. Clinics are continuing to monitor and adapt their appointment schedules based on local outbreaks of COVID-19. Studies on COVID-19 in patients with cancer are limited, but consistently indicate that this population is at risk for more severe COVID-19 illness. Data from recent studies also suggest that pediatric patients with cancer have a lower risk of severe COVID-19 illness compared to adults. Certain features of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detected by lung, brain, and gastrointestinal imaging may confound radiologists' interpretation of cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment response. Lastly, as clinics begin to re-open for routine appointments, protocols have been put in place to reduce SARS-CoV-2 exposure to patients during their visits. This review details different perspectives on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and on cancer imaging. Keywords: Abdomen/GI, Cardiac, Infection, Nervous-Peripheral.
| S-EPMC7706101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study explored patient and caregiver expectations and experiences of virtual primary care in Manitoba, Canada. This study focused on accessibility of care, acceptability and perceptions of quality from 'users' of primary healthcare services. Due to the rapid implementation of virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, patient/public input was largely bypassed.MethodsA mixed method was conducted in collaboration with Patient and Caregiver Community Advisors. Data was obtained from 696 surveys and 9 focus groups (n = 41 patients and caregivers).ResultsData suggest good acceptance of virtual visits, although considered a new experience despite almost exclusive use of the telephone. Participants preferred more input for choosing the type of visit but experienced less stress, time and inconvenience by using virtual care. There were mixed opinions of quality. More complex visits were associated with incomplete consultations and serve as one exemplar of the limitations due to lack of physical presence or contact. Unique communication skills were required to convey health concerns adequately and accurately. A more transactional approach was perceived from the lack of visual cues and the awkwardness associated with pauses during the phone conversation. Virtual care may be better used for certain circumstances but should encompass patient-centred decision making for when and how. Many expressed interests in video options; technology access and user ability are additional considerations for advancing virtual care.ConclusionsThe experiences and recommendations from patients and caregivers provide an important contribution to decision-making and integrating and sustaining quality virtual care for patient-centered healthcare service delivery. Keywords: Virtual care experiences, primary care, patient-oriented research, mixed methods, COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10896066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19.MethodsPatients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery.ResultsAfter review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05.ConclusionThe restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.
| S-EPMC8088543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the changes introduced in response to the pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care.DesignProspective observational panel study (health center) based on two cross-sectional surveys.Setting29 Primary Health Care centers from three Spanish health regions (Mallorca, Catalunya Central and Camp de Tarragona).ParticipantsRandom sample of patients visiting their centers before (n=2199 patients) and during the pandemic (n=1955 patients) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used the PREOS-PC questionnaire, a validated instrument which assesses patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. We compared mean scores of the "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales in both periods, and built multilevel regression analyzes to study the variations in patient and center characteristics associated with worse levels of safety. A qualitative (content) analysis of patients' experiences during the pandemic was also performed.ResultsThe "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales scores significantly worsened during the COVID-19 period (92.65 to 88.81 (Cohen's d=0.27); and 96.92 to 79.97 (d=0.70), respectively). Patient and center characteristics associated to worsened scores were: women, people with a lower educational level, worse health status, more years assigned to the center, and health region.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic, a perceptible worsening in patient safety perceived by patients treated in Primary Care has been observed, which has differentially affected patients according to their sociodemographic characteristics or health center profiles.
| S-EPMC8708814 | biostudies-literature