Dataset Information

Exploring the use and challenges of implementing virtual visits during COVID-19 in primary care and lessons for sustained use.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly transformed how healthcare is delivered to limit the transmission of the virus. This descriptive cross-sectional study explored the current use of virtual visits in providing care among primary care providers in southwestern Ontario during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and the anticipated level of utilization post-pandemic. It also explored clinicians' perceptions of the available support tools and resources and challenges to incorporating virtual visits within primary care practices.

Methods

Primary care physicians and nurse practitioners currently practicing in the southwestern part of Ontario were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey invite was distributed via email, different social media platforms, and newsletters. The survey questions gathered clinicians' demographic information and assessed their experience with virtual visits, including the proportion of visits conducted virtually (before, during the pandemic, and expected volume post-pandemic), overall satisfaction and comfort level with offering virtual visits using modalities, challenges experienced, as well as useful resources and tools to support them in using virtual visits in their practice.

Results

We received 207 responses, with 96.6% of respondents offering virtual visits in their practice. Participants used different modalities to conduct virtual visits, with the vast majority offering visits via phone calls (99.5%). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians who offered virtual visits have conducted an average of 66.4% of their visits virtually, compared to an average of 6.5% pre-pandemic. Participants anticipated continuing use of virtual visits with an average of 43.9% post-pandemic. Overall, 74.5% of participants were satisfied with their experience using virtual visits, and 88% believed they could incorporate virtual visits well within the usual workflow. Participants highlighted some challenges in offering virtual care. For example, 58% were concerned about patients' limited access to technology, 55% about patients' knowledge of technology, and 41% about the lack of integration with their current EMR, the increase in demand over time, and the connectivity issues such as inconsistent Wi-Fi/Internet connection. There were significant differences in perception of some challenges between clinicians in urban vs, rural areas. Clinicians in rural areas were more likely to consider the inconsistent Wi-Fi and limited connectivity as barriers to incorporating virtual visits within the practice setting (58.8% vs. 40.2%, P = 0.030). In comparison, clinicians in urban areas were significantly more concerned about patients overusing virtual care services (39.4% vs. 21.6%, P = 0.024). As for support tools, 47% of clinicians advocated for virtual care standards outlined by their profession's college. About 32% identified change management support and technical training as supportive tools. Moreover, 39% and 28% thought local colleagues and in-house organizational support are helpful resources, respectively.

Conclusion

Our study shows that the adoption of virtual visits has exponentially increased during the pandemic, with a significant interest in continuing to use virtual care options in the delivery of primary care post-pandemic. The study sheds light on tools and resources that could enhance operational efficiencies in adopting virtual visits in primary care settings and highlights challenges that, when addressed, can expand the health system capacity and sustained use of virtual care.

SUBMITTER: Mohammed HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8224904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWithin-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software.MethodsStaff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsSixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups.ConclusionsPrimary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal management of hypertension requires frequent monitoring and follow-up. Novel, pragmatic interventions have the potential to engage patients, maintain blood pressure control, and enhance access to busy primary care practices. "Virtual visits" are structured asynchronous online interactions between a patient and a clinician to extend medical care beyond the initial office visit. OBJECTIVE:To compare blood pressure control and healthcare utilization between patients who received virtual visits compared to usual hypertension care. DESIGN:Propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study with adjustment by difference-in-differences. PARTICIPANTS:Primary care patients with hypertension. EXPOSURE:Patient participation in at least one virtual visit for hypertension. Usual care patients did not use a virtual visit but were seen in-person for hypertension. MAIN MEASURES:Adjusted difference in mean systolic blood pressure, primary care office visits, specialist office visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions in the 180 days before and 180 days after the in-person visit. KEY RESULTS:Of the 1051 virtual visit patients and 24,848 usual care patients, we propensity score-matched 893 patients from each group. Both groups were approximately 61 years old, 44% female, 85% White, had about five chronic conditions, and about 20% had a mean pre-visit systolic blood pressure of 140-160 mmHg. Compared to usual care, virtual visit patients had an adjusted 0.8 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2) fewer primary care office visits. There was no significant adjusted difference in systolic blood pressure control (0.6 mmHg [95% CI, -?2.0 to 3.1]), specialist visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, -?0.3 to 0.3]), emergency department visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.01]), or inpatient admissions (0.0 more admissions [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1]). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with reasonably well-controlled hypertension, virtual visit participation was associated with equivalent blood pressure control and reduced in-office primary care utilization.

Project description:BackgroundProactive integrated virtual healthcare resource (VHR) use can improve efficiency, maximize resource capacity for delivering optimal coordinated care and improve patient outcomes. Proactive integrated VHR use is vital for delivering high quality care. Our objectives were to identify proactive integrated VHR use among primary care teams, best practices and targeted implementation strategies to promote proactive integrated VHR use.MethodsThis is a mixed-method descriptive study. We employed a community-based participatory approach to collect data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze and contextualize findings. A cross-sectional sample of primary care team members (n = 65) from a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center participated in focus groups, follow-up interviews (n = 16), and respond to self-report surveys. Operational subject matter experts (n = 15) participated in informant interviews.ResultsSurvey data described current use and factors that influenced singular VHR use and were convergent with qualitative findings. Focus group and interview data described no evidence of proactive integrated VHR use. Differences and similarities were identified between both utilization groups, such as facilitators and barriers, recommendations, patient education and preferred implementation strategies. All groups reported issues around VHR availability knowledge and access and functionality. Participants identified the need for best practices that are specific to care tasks and performance measures. Expert informant interviews identified a list of VHR tools that could be proactively integrated across the healthcare continuum.ConclusionsHealth systems are leveraging technologies to proactively integrate VHR to maximize information exchange, clinical decision support and patient engagement. VHR is critical during global pandemics, such as COVID-19, to maintain access to care coordination and delivery while abiding by public health recommendations. Though recent requirements for reducing contact create an intrinsic motivation, cultural change through education and best practices of proactive integrated use across the healthcare continuum is needed to create a culture of VHR super users.

Project description:BackgroundCancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions.MethodsThe order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems.ResultsThe average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site.ConclusionsIn this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings.Trial registrationNCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.