Prior traumatic brain injury is a risk factor for in-hospital mortality in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a TRACK-TBI cohort study.

Objectives: An estimated 14-23% of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) incur multiple lifetime TBIs. The relationship between prior TBI and outcomes in patients with moderate to severe TBI (msTBI) is not well delineated. We examined the associations between prior TBI, in-hospital mortality, and outcomes up to 12 months after injury in a prospective US msTBI cohort. Methods: Data from hospitalized subjects with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3-12 were extracted from the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study (enrollment period: 2014-2019). Prior TBI with amnesia or alteration of consciousness was assessed using the Ohio State University TBI Identification Method. Competing risk regressions adjusting for age, sex, psychiatric history, cranial injury and extracranial injury severity examined the associations between prior TBI and in-hospital mortality, with hospital discharged alive as the competing risk. Adjusted HRs (aHR (95% CI)) were reported. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed the associations between prior TBI, mortality, and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-3 (vs. 4-8)) at 3, 6, and 12 months after injury. Results: Of 405 acute msTBI subjects, 21.5% had prior TBI, which was associated with male sex (87.4% vs. 77.0%, p=0.037) and psychiatric history (34.5% vs. 20.7%, p=0.010). In-hospital mortality was 10.1% (prior TBI: 17.2%, no prior TBI: 8.2%, p=0.025). Competing risk regressions indicated that prior TBI was associated with likelihood of in-hospital mortality (aHR=2.06 (1.01-4.22)), but not with hospital discharged alive. Prior TBI was not associated with mortality or unfavorable outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months. Conclusions: After acute msTBI, prior TBI history is independently associated with in-hospital mortality but not with mortality or unfavorable outcomes within 12 months after injury. This selective association underscores the importance of collecting standardized prior TBI history data early after acute hospitalization to inform risk stratification. Prospective validation studies are needed. Level of evidence: IV. Trial registration number: NCT02119182.

Patient and Parent Experience with Pediatric Care Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Press Ganey Survey Scores for Telehealth and In-Person Encounters.

Background: Prior research suggests that pediatric patients and their parents/guardians are generally satisfied with care provided through telehealth. The objective of this study was to compare Press Ganey provider-oriented experience survey scores between telehealth and in-person patient encounters among a variety of pediatric clinical specialties at a large academic medical center. Methods: We analyzed Press Ganey survey data from pediatric patient encounters from UC Davis Health, collected between August 2020 and February 2022. Survey results analyzed respondents' satisfaction with care providers, including satisfaction with explanations given, discussions led, concern showed, and inclusion by providers; and the likelihood the survey respondent would recommend the provider to others. We used logistic regression models, which included case mix variables and clinical specialty to compare the odds of scoring the highest possible survey response ("top box" score). Results: Of the 6,093 survey responses that met inclusion criteria, 1,157 (19%) were associated with telehealth encounters and 4,936 (81%) were associated with in-person encounters. We found no significant difference in the odds of respondents giving a top box score to rate their satisfaction with their care provider between telehealth and in-person encounters. When respondents were asked whether they would recommend the care provider to others, the odds of giving a top box score following a telehealth encounter relative to an in-person encounter was 1.22 (95% confidence interval [0.97-1.52]; p-value = 0.09). Discussion: We found that survey respondents' experiences with their care provider are high and comparable for telehealth and in-person encounters in a pediatric population.

Patient Satisfaction with Care Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey Scores for In-Person and Telehealth Encounters at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: Previous research has demonstrated high patient satisfaction with telehealth encounters. The objective of this study was to compare patient satisfaction scores regarding their physician using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys between in-person and telehealth outpatient encounters during the pandemic at a large academic health center. Methods: We analyzed CAHPS patient satisfaction survey data within the UC Davis Health system between August 2020 and February 2022. The questions analyzed pertained to patients' satisfaction with their care provider; whether they felt included in discussions, would recommend their physician, received clear explanations, and that their concerns were heard. Using logistic regression models adjusting for confounders, we compared CAHPS care provider top box scores-a score of 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale-for 5 survey items. Results: Survey results from 76,687 (84.2%) in-person encounters and 14,404 (15.8%) telehealth encounters were evaluated. The odds of a telehealth patient giving a top box score for whether they would recommend their care provider to others were 0.97 those of an in-person patient (95% confidence interval [0.87-1.06]; p = 0.494). Similarly, there was no significant difference in odds of giving a top box score between telehealth and in-person patients for the other four questions analyzed. Discussion: Our findings indicate that patient experience and care provider rankings for in-person care and telehealth care are comparable across a variety of specialties and conditions at a large academic health center. Future studies should investigate patient satisfaction with in-person and telehealth encounters by diagnosis and specialty.

Environmental Impact of Ambulatory Telehealth Use by a Statewide University Health System During COVID-19.

Objective: Several studies before the COVID-19 pandemic documented the positive impact of telehealth on patients' travel distance, time, out-of-pocket costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this study was to calculate these outcomes following the increased use of ambulatory telehealth services within five large University of California (UC) health care systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We analyzed retrospective ambulatory telehealth data from the five UC health care systems between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Travel distances and time saved were calculated using the round-trip distance a patient would have traveled for an in-person visit, while cost savings were calculated using Internal Revenue Services' (IRS) 2022 standard mileage reimbursement rates. In addition, we estimated the injuries and fatalities avoided using the national motor vehicle crash data. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using the 2021 national average vehicle emission rates. Results: More than 3 million (n = 3,043,369) ambulatory telehealth encounters were included in the study. The total round-trip distance, travel time, and travel cost saved from these encounters were 53,664,391 miles, 1,788,813 h, and $33,540,244, respectively. These translated to 17.6 miles, 35.3 min, and $11.02 per encounter. By using telehealth, 42.4 crash-related injuries and 0.7 fatalities were avoided. The use of telehealth for ambulatory services during this time eliminated 21465.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 14.1 metric tons of total hydrocarbons, 212.3 metric tons of exhaust carbon monoxide, and 9.3 metric tons of exhaust nitrogen oxide emissions. Conclusions: Telehealth use for ambulatory services in a statewide academic Health System during COVID-19 had a positive impact on patient travel distance, time and costs, injuries and fatalities in motor vehicle accidents, and greenhouse gas emissions. These significant advantages of telehealth should be considered when planning future health services.