Dataset Information

Evaluating the primary care clinical pharmacist visit transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing medication related problems from telehealth visits and in-person visits.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced healthcare systems to rethink healthcare delivery, and forced primary care pharmacists in our healthcare system to switch all visits that were previously face to face (FTF) to telehealth.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to examine the association between medication related problems (MRPs) resolved in telehealth vs FTF primary care clinical pharmacist visits. The telehealth visits took place in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced health care systems to rethink care delivery. Data was collected for patient visits for 2 weeks in January before the pandemic and 2 weeks in June during the pandemic.

Results

There was significantly more average MRPs resolved per patient encounter in FTF visits compared with telehealth visits, particularly in patient encounters that were previously seen by the pharmacist, who were under 65 years old, identified as Black/African American, had chronic kidney disease but not on dialysis, diabetes with end organ damage, and had uncontrolled blood pressure and uncontrolled A1c.

Conclusion

These results provide a start to establish criteria for which patients should be seen by a clinical pharmacist in person vs over the phone.

SUBMITTER: McNamara A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8426712 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication mismanagement is a major cause of both hospital admission and nursing home placement of frail older adults. Medication reviews by community pharmacists aim to maximise therapeutic benefit but also minimise harm. Pharmacist-led medication reviews have been the focus of several systematic reviews, but none have focussed on the home setting. REVIEW METHODS:To determine the effectiveness of pharmacist home visits for individuals at risk of medication-related problems we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirteen databases were searched from inception to December 2018. Forward and backward citation of included studies was also performed. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Randomised controlled studies of home visits by pharmacists for individuals at risk of medication-related problems were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where sufficient data allowed and narrative synthesis summarised all remaining data. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs (reported in 15 articles), involving 3410 participants, were included in the review. The frequency, content and purpose of the home visit varied considerably. The data from eight trials were suitable for meta-analysis of the effects on hospital admissions and mortality, and from three trials for the effects on quality of life. Overall there was no evidence of reduction in hospital admissions (risk ratio (RR) of 1.01 (95%CI 0.86 to 1.20, I2?=?69.0%, p?=?0.89; 8 studies, 2314 participants)), or mortality (RR of 1.01 (95%CI 0.81 to 1.26, I2?=?0%, p?=?0.94; 8 studies, 2314 participants)). There was no consistent evidence of an effect on quality of life, medication adherence or knowledge. CONCLUSION:A systematic review of twelve RCTs assessing the impact of pharmacist home visits for individuals at risk of medication related problems found no evidence of effect on hospital admission or mortality rates, and limited evidence of effect on quality of life. Future studies should focus on using more robust methods to assess relevant outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe feasibility of remote visits following abdominal colorectal surgery has not been studied in relation to efficacy, patient satisfaction, and surgeon satisfaction. This study aims to assess reliability and satisfaction with a web-based questionnaire for post-operative visits following abdominal colorectal surgery.MethodsThis was a prospective single-arm cohort study at single-tertiary care center during admission for abdominal colorectal surgery. Using a web-based patient portal, patients completed a questionnaire 48 h prior to their scheduled in-person follow-up visits and submitted photographs of their incisions. Surgeons reviewed patient-entered data and responded within 24 h. Following the subsequent in-person visit, surgeons completed questionnaires to compare the accuracy of the web-based vs. in-person evaluations. Lastly, patients and surgeons completed separate satisfaction surveys after the in-person visits.ResultsA total of 33 patients were enrolled, of which 30 (90.9%) successfully completed the web questionnaire. Providers reported the online questionnaire to be concordant with the in-person visit in 90% of cases. Of the patients who completed the study, only half found the survey alone to be acceptable for follow-up. Patients spent significantly less time completing the online questionnaire (≤ 10 min) than in-person visits, including travel time (75 min, IQR 50-100). Only 12 patients (40%) uploaded photographs of their incisions. During in-person visits, management changes were employed in four patients (13.3%), of which 3 required treatment of superficial surgical site infections (10%).ConclusionThis asynchronous web-based visit format was acceptable to colorectal surgeons but was only embraced by half of patients, despite considerable time savings. While patients preferred in-person visits, there may be opportunities to expand TeleHealth acceptance that focus on patient selection and education.Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT05084131.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth rapidly expanded since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to understand how telehealth can substitute in-person services by 1) estimating the changes in non-COVID emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and care costs among US Medicare beneficiaries by visit modality (telehealth vs. in-person) during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year; 2) comparing the follow-up time and patterns between telehealth and in-person care.MethodsA retrospective and longitudinal study design using US Medicare patients 65 years or older from an Accountable Care Organization (ACO). The study period was April-December 2020, and the baseline period was March 2019 - February 2020. The sample included 16,222 patients, 338,872 patient-month records and 134,375 outpatient encounters. Patients were categorized as non-users, telehealth only, in-person care only and users of both types. Outcomes included the number of unplanned events and costs per month at the patient level; number of days until the next visit and whether the next visit happened within 3-, 7-, 14- and 30-days at the encounter level. All analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics and seasonal trends.ResultsBeneficiaries who used only telehealth or in-person care had comparable baseline health conditions but were healthier than those who used both types of services. During the study period, the telehealth only group had significantly fewer ED visits/hospitalizations and lower Medicare payments than the baseline (ED 13.2, 95% CI [11.6, 14.7] vs. 24.6 per 1,000 patients per month and hospitalization 8.1 [6.7, 9.4] vs. 12.7); the in-person only group had significantly fewer ED visits (21.9 [20.3, 23.5] vs. 26.1) and lower Medicare payments, but not hospitalizations; the both-types group had significantly more hospitalizations (23.0 [21.4, 24.6] vs. 17.8). Telehealth was not significantly different from in-person encounters in number of days until the next visit (33.4 vs. 31.2 days) or the probabilities of 3- and 7-day follow-up visits (9.2 vs. 9.3% and 21.8 vs.23.5%).ConclusionsPatients and providers treated telehealth and in-person visits as substitutes and used either depending on medical needs and availability. Telehealth did not lead to sooner or more follow-up visits than in-person services.

Project description:ImportanceTelehealth has been posited as a cost-effective means for improving access to care for persons with chronic conditions, including kidney disease. Perceptions of telehealth among older patients with chronic illness, their care partners, and clinicians are largely unknown but are critical to successful telehealth use and expansion efforts.ObjectiveTo identify patient, care partner, and nephrologists' perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, drawbacks of telehealth compared to in-person visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from August to December 2020 with purposively sampled patients (aged 70 years or older, chronic kidney disease stages 4 to 5), care partners, and clinicians in Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Maine; and San Diego, California.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants described telehealth experiences, including factors contributing to and impeding engagement, satisfaction, and quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.ResultsOf 60 interviews, 19 (32%) were with clinicians, 30 (50%) with patients, and 11 (18%) with care partners; 16 clinicians (84%) were nephrologists; 17 patient participants (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 38 (67%) were women. Four overarching themes characterized telehealth's benefits and drawbacks for patient-centered care among older, chronically ill adults: inconsistent quality of care, patient experience and engagement, loss of connection and mistrust (eg, challenges discussing bad news), and disparities with accessing telehealth. Although telehealth improved convenience and care partner engagement, participants expressed concerns about clinical effectiveness and limitations of virtual physical examinations and potentially widening disparities in access. Many participants shared concerns about harms to the patient-clinician relationship, limited ability to comfort patients in virtual settings, and reduced patient trust.Conclusions and relevanceOlder patients, care partners, and kidney clinicians (ie, nephrologists and physician assistants) shared divergent views of patient-centered telehealth care, especially its clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and clinician-patient relationship. Understanding older patients' and kidney clinicians' perceptions of telehealth elucidate barriers that should be addressed to promote high-quality care and telehealth use.

Project description:ImportanceTelehealth implementation associated with the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) affected patient-clinical team interactions in numerous ways. Yet, studies have narrowly examined billed patient-clinician visits rather than including visits with other team members (eg, pharmacists) or between-visit interactions.ObjectiveTo evaluate rates of change over time in visits (in-person, telehealth) and between-visit interactions (telephone calls, patient portal messages) overall and by key patient characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included adults with diabetes receiving primary care at urban academic (University of California San Francisco [UCSF]) and safety-net (San Francisco Health Network [SFHN]) health care systems. Encounters from April 2019 to March 2021 were analyzed.ExposureTelehealth implementation over 3 periods: pre-PHE (April 2019 to March 2020), strict shelter-in-place (April to June 2020), and hybrid-PHE (July 2020 to March 2021).Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were rates of change in monthly mean number of total encounters, visits with any health care team member, visits with billing clinicians, and between-visit interactions. Key patient-level characteristics were age, race and ethnicity, language, and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES).ResultsOf 15 148 patients (4976 UCSF; 8975 SFHN) included, 2464 (16%) were 75 years or older, 7734 (51%) were female patients, 9823 (65%) self-identified as racially or ethnically minoritized, 6223 (41%) had a non-English language preference, and 4618 (31%) lived in the lowest nSES quintile. After accounting for changes to care delivery through an interrupted time-series analysis, total encounters increased in the hybrid-PHE period (UCSF: 2.3% per patient/mo; 95% CI, 1.6%-2.9% per patient/mo; SFHN: 1.8% per patient/mo, 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2% per patient/mo), associated primarily with growth in between-visit interactions (UCSF: 3.1% per patient/mo, 95% CI, 2.3%-3.8% per patient/mo; SFHN: 2.9% per patient/mo, 95% CI, 2.3%-3.4% per patient/mo). In contrast, rates of visits were stable during the hybrid-PHE period. Although there were fewer differences in visit use by key patient-level characteristics during the hybrid-PHE period, pre-PHE differences in between-visit interactions persisted during the hybrid-PHE period at SFHN. Asian and Chinese-speaking patients at SFHN had fewer monthly mean between-visit interactions compared with White patients (0.46 [95% CI, 0.42-0.50] vs 0.59 [95% CI, 0.53-0.66] between-visit interactions/patient/mo; P < .001) and English-speaking patients (0.52 [95% CI, 0.47-0.58] vs 0.61 [95% CI, 0.56-0.66] between-visit interactions/patient/mo; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, pre-PHE growth in overall patient-clinician encounters persisted after PHE-related telehealth implementation, driven in both periods by between-visit interactions. Differential utilization based on patient characteristics was observed, which may indicate disparities. The implications for health care team workload and patient outcomes are unknown, particularly regarding between-visit interactions. Therefore, to comprehensively understand care utilization for patients with chronic diseases, research should expand beyond billed visits.

Project description:One-quarter of U.S. patients do not have a primary care provider or do not have complete access to one. Work and personal responsibilities also compete with finding convenient, accessible care. Telehealth services facilitate patients' access to care, but whether patients are satisfied with telehealth is unclear.We assessed patients' satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits in a telehealth program at CVS MinuteClinics.Cross-sectional patient satisfaction survey.Patients were aged ?18 years, presented at a MinuteClinic offering telehealth in January-September 2014, had symptoms suitable for telehealth consultation, and agreed to a telehealth visit when the on-site practitioner was busy.Patients reported their age, gender, and whether they had health insurance and/or a primary care provider. Patients rated their satisfaction with seeing diagnostic images, hearing and seeing the remote practitioner, the assisting on-site nurse's capability, quality of care, convenience, and overall understanding. Patients ranked telehealth visits compared to traditional ones: better (defined as preferring telehealth), just as good (defined as liking telehealth), or worse. Predictors of preferring or liking telehealth were assessed via multivariate logistic regression.In total, 1734 (54 %) of 3303 patients completed the survey: 70 % were women, and 41 % had no usual place of care. Between 94 and 99 % reported being "very satisfied" with all telehealth attributes. One-third preferred a telehealth visit to a traditional in-person visit. An additional 57 % liked telehealth. Lack of medical insurance increased the odds of preferring telehealth (OR?=?0.83, 95 % CI, 0.72-0.97). Predictors of liking telehealth were female gender (OR?=?1.68, 1.04-2.72) and being very satisfied with their overall understanding of telehealth (OR?=?2.76, 1.84-4.15), quality of care received (OR?=?2.34, 1.42-3.87), and telehealth's convenience (OR?=?2.87, 1.09-7.94) CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported high satisfaction with their telehealth experience. Convenience and perceived quality of care were important to patients, suggesting that telehealth may facilitate access to care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits.BackgroundTelemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAmbulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis.ResultsOf 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits.ConclusionAcross visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.