Reducing no-show visits and disparities in access: The impact of telemedicine.

BACKGROUND: No-show visits have serious consequences for patients, providers, and healthcare systems as they lead to delays in care, increased costs, and reduced access to services. Telemedicine has emerged as a promising alternative to in-person visits by reducing travel barriers, but risks exacerbating the digital divide. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telemedicine (video and phone) at a tertiary care academic center on no-show visits compared to in-person visits. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all weekday clinic visits among in-state adult patients at a single tertiary care center in the southeast from January 2020 to April 2023 was performed. Rates of no-show visits for patients who were seen via phone and video were compared with those who were seen in-person. Demographic and clinical characteristics of these groups were also compared, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and visit type. The primary outcome was the rate of no-show visits for each visit type. RESULTS: Our analysis included 3,105,382 scheduled appointments, of which 81.2% were in-person, 13.4% via video, and 5.4% via phone calls. Compared to in-person visits, phone calls and video visits reduced the odds of no-show visits by 50% (aOR 0.5, CI 0.49-0.51) and 15% (aOR 0.85, CI 0.84-0.86), respectively. Older patients, Black patients, patients furthest from clinic, and patients from counties with the greatest degree of vulnerability and disparities in digital access were more likely to use phone visits. No-shows were more common among non-white, male, and younger patients from counties with lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine effectively reduced no-show visits. However, limiting telemedicine to video-based visits only exacerbated disparities in access. Phone calls allow historically underserved patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to access healthcare and should be included within the definition of telemedicine.

Improving surgical patient education materials using informational design with visual elements.

Patient education materials (PEMs) serve as a foundation for educating patients and families across all surgical fields but are often not understandable. The National Institute of Health (NIH) recommends that PEMs be written at a grade 6-7 reading level; however, most current materials exceed that measure.3 Lack of understandable and appropriate surgical PEMs compounds the difficulties that low health literacy patients face with resultant poor surgical outcomes.2,3 The challenge for surgeons is to adequately educate patients pre-operatively and post-operatively on the complexities of surgery. Another challenge is to compact decades of education and training into an easy-to-understand medium for patients. To address this challenge, many physicians have utilized visual aids to improve PEM efficacy. While visual aids are a critical piece of education materials, they must be designed intentionally to be effective. The most important consideration is that the PEM communicates the information clearly to users. With this in mind, we created a framework for productive utilization of visual aids by integrating the C.A.R.P. graphic design technique into an existing surgical PEM to enhance communication and understandability.

Increased Risk of Postoperative Mortality Associated With Prior COVID-19 Infection.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of COVID-19 infection on surgical patients is largely described by small-cohort studies. This study characterized the risk factors for postoperative mortality among patients with preoperative COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record for patients who tested positive for COVID-19 before surgery, excluding procedures related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (case, March 2020-April 2021). Mortality was compared with that for patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (control, January 2018‒February 2020) with chi-square, t test, and multivariable regression. RESULTS: There were 5,209 patients in the control cohort. Among 1,072 patients with positive COVID-19 testing before surgery, 589 had surgeries with specialties tracked by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (General Surgery, Gynecology, Neurosurgery, Orthopedics, Thoracic, Vascular). Patients with previous COVID-19 infection were younger (age 48 vs 59 years, p<0.001), were more likely to be Black (42% vs 28%, p<0.001), and underwent fewer elective surgeries (55% vs 83%, p<0.001). Postoperative mortality was greater among the case cohort (4.4% vs 1%, p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, postoperative mortality increased with age (OR=1.02), emergent surgeries (OR=2.6), and previous COVID-19 infection (OR=3.8). Among patients with previous COVID-19 infection, postoperative mortality was associated with male sex (OR=2.7), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Score (OR=4.8), and smoking history (OR=3.7). CONCLUSIONS: Although data abstraction was limited by the electronic medical record, postoperative mortality is nearly 6 times higher for patients infected with COVID-19 within 2 weeks before surgery when adjusting for patient- and procedure-level factors. Among those with previous COVID-19 infection, postoperative mortality is associated with male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Score, and smoking history.

Cost-benefit analysis of a patient engagement technology (PET) in cardiac, thoracic, and colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement technologies (PETs) guide patients through perioperative care, but little is known about their costs-benefits. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective colorectal, cardiac, thoracic surgery 2015-2020. PET was implemented 2018. Patients were propensity-matched in pre-PET, PET, non-PET groups. Costs of surgical encounter and 30 days post-discharge, mortality, length-of-stay, readmissions, complications, satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 4,373 patients underwent surgery and 607 (13.9%) patients enrolled in the PET. PET patients did not have increased costs in any specialty. Colorectal PET patients' variable costs of surgical encounter were $102 lower than non-PET, $1495 lower than pre-PET (p = 0.03). Thoracic PET patients' total costs of surgical encounter were $9224 lower than non-PET, $2187 lower than pre-PET (p = 0.03). Thoracic PET patients had lower mean LOS (2.4 days, 5.1 non-PET, 3.1 pre-PET, p = 0.03). PET patient satisfaction ranged 86.0%-97.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PET did not increase costs and was associated with benefits for patients undergoing elective surgery.

Inequity in Telemedicine Use Among Patients with Cancer in the Deep South During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use has increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains unclear if its rapid growth exacerbates disparities in healthcare access. We aimed to characterize telemedicine use among a large oncology population in the Deep South during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at the only National Cancer Institute designated-cancer center in Alabama March 2020 to December 2020. With a diverse (26.5% Black, 61% rural) population, this southeastern demographic uniquely reflects historically vulnerable populations. All non-procedural visits at the cancer center from March to December 2020 were included in this study excluding those with a department that had fewer than 100 visits during this time period. Patient and clinic level characteristics were analyzed using t-test and Chi-square to compare characteristics between visit types (in-person versus telemedicine, and video versus audio within telemedicine). Generalized estimating equations were used to identify independent factors associated with telemedicine use and type of telemedicine use. RESULTS: There were 50 519 visits and most were in-person (81.3%). Among telemedicine visits, most were phone based (58.3%). Black race and male sex predicted in-person visits. Telemedicine visits were less likely to have video among patients who were Black, older, male, publicly insured, and from lower income areas. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine use, specifically with video, is significantly lower among historically vulnerable populations. Understanding barriers to telemedicine use and preferred modalities of communication among different populations will help inform insurance reimbursement and interventions at different socioecological levels to ensure the continued evolution of telemedicine is equitable.