Evaluating the delivery of care by telemedicine for incarcerated people living with HIV: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of telemedicine has grown significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic and has the potential to improve access to specialized care for otherwise underserved populations. Incarcerated people living with HIV (PLWH) could potentially benefit from expanded access to HIV care through telemedicine. METHODS: All PLWH who were incarcerated within the Tennessee Department of Corrections and received care through the HIV telemedicine clinic at Regional One Hospital between 5/1/2019 through 2/28/2022 were identified from the electronic health records (EHR). Demographics, laboratory data, vaccine history, and treatment outcomes were abstracted from the EHR. Retention in care and viral suppression were defined using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. RESULTS: Of the 283 incarcerated PLWH receiving care from this telemedicine clinic, 78% remained retained in care and 94% achieved or maintaining viral suppression at 12 months. Many preventative care measures remained unperformed or undocumented, including vaccinations and testing for concurrent sexually transmitted infections. There were 56 patients (20%) found to have chronic hepatitis C in this population, with 71% either cured or still on treatment in this study period. CONCLUSIONS: Retention in care and viral suppression rates were excellent among incarcerated PLWH receiving telemedicine care for their HIV. HIV related primary health care screenings and vaccinations, however, were less consistently documented and represent areas for improvement.

A Case Report on the Effectiveness of Virtual Monitoring of Postdischarge COVID-19 Positive Patients in a Rural Hospital Setting: A Retrospective Review.

Objective: The pandemic has pushed hospital system to re-evaluate the ways they provide care. West Tennessee Healthcare (WTH) developed a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program to monitor positive COVID-19 patients after being discharged from the hospital for any worsening symptomatology and preemptively mitigate the potential of readmission. Methods: We sought to compare the readmission rates of individuals placed on our remote monitoring protocol with individuals not included in the program. We selected remotely monitored individuals discharged from WTH from October 2020 to December 2020 and compared these data points with a control group. Results: We analyzed 1,351 patients with 241 patients receiving no RPM intervention, 969 patients receiving standard monitoring, and 141 patients enrolled in our 24-h remote monitoring. Our lowest all cause readmission rate was 4.96% (p = 0.37) in our 24-h remote monitoring group. We also collected 641 surveys from the monitored patients with two statistically significant answers. Discussion: The low readmission rate noted in our 24-h remotely monitored cohort signifies a potential opportunity that a program of this nature can create for a health care system struggling during a resource-limited time to continue to provide quality care. Conclusion: The program allowed the allocation of hospital resources for individuals with more acute states and monitored less critical patients without using personal protective equipment. The novel program was able to offer an avenue to improve resource utilization and provide care for a health system in a rural area. Further investigation is needed; however, significant opportunities can be seen with data obtained during the study.