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.

Understanding the Impact of Enhanced Recovery Programs on Social Vulnerability, Race, and Colorectal Surgery Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Increasing social vulnerability, measured by the Social Vulnerability Index, has been associated with worse surgical outcomes. However, less is known about the impact of social vulnerability on patients who underwent colorectal surgery under enhanced recovery programs. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that increasing social vulnerability is associated with worse outcomes before enhanced recovery implementation, but that after implementation, disparities in outcomes would be reduced. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using multivariable logistic regression to identify associations of social vulnerability and enhanced recovery with outcomes. SETTINGS: Institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (2010-2020). Enhanced recovery programs were implemented in 2015. Those adhering to 70% or more of enhanced recovery program components were defined as enhanced recovery and all others as nonenhanced recovery. OUTCOMES: Length of stay, complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: Of 1523 patients, 589 (38.7%) were in the enhanced recovery group, with 625 patients (41%) in the lowest third of the Social Vulnerability Index, 411 (27%) in the highest third. There were no differences in Social Vulnerability Index distribution by the enhanced recovery group. On multivariable modeling, social vulnerability was not associated with increased length of stay, complications, or readmissions in the enhanced recovery group. Black race was associated with increased length of stay in both the nonenhanced recovery (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3) and enhanced recovery groups (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4). Enhanced recovery adherence was associated with reductions in racial disparities in complications as the Black race was associated with increased odds of complications in the nonenhanced recovery group (OR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not in the enhanced recovery group (OR 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.6). LIMITATIONS: Details of potential factors affecting enhanced recovery program adherence were not assessed and are the subject of current work by this team. CONCLUSION: High social vulnerability was not associated with worse outcomes among both enhanced recovery and nonenhanced recovery colorectal patients. Enhanced recovery program adherence was associated with reductions in racial disparities in complication rates. However, disparities in length of stay remain, and work is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms driving these disparities. See Video Abstract . COMPRENDIENDO EL IMPACTO DE LOS PROGRAMAS DE RECUPERACIN MEJORADA EN LA VULNERABILIDAD SOCIAL, LA RAZA Y LOS RESULTADOS DE LA CIRUGA COLORRECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:El aumento de la vulnerabilidad social medida por el índice de vulnerabilidad social se ha asociado con peores resultados quirúrgicos. Sin embargo, se sabe menos sobre el impacto de la vulnerabilidad social en los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal bajo programas de recuperación mejorados.OBJETIVO:Planteamos la hipótesis de que el aumento de la vulnerabilidad social se asocia con peores resultados antes de la implementación de la recuperación mejorada, pero después de la implementación, las disparidades en los resultados se reducirían.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que utilizó regresión logística multivariable para identificar asociaciones de vulnerabilidad social y recuperación mejorada con los resultados.ESCENARIO:Base de datos institucional del Programa de Mejora Nacional de la Calidad de la Cirugía del American College of Surgeons.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva (2010-2020). Programas de recuperación mejorada implementados en 2015. Aquellos que se adhieren a ≥70% de los componentes del programa de recuperación mejorada definidos como recuperación mejorada y todos los demás como recuperación no mejorada.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Duración de la estancia hospitalaria, complicaciones y reingresos.RESULTADOS:De 1.523 pacientes, 589 (38,7%) estaban en el grupo de recuperación mejorada, con 732 (40,3%) pacientes en el tercio más bajo del índice de vulnerabilidad social, 498 (27,4%) en el tercio más alto, y no hubo diferencias en la distribución del índice vulnerabilidad social por grupo de recuperación mejorada. En el modelo multivariable, la vulnerabilidad social no se asoció con una mayor duración de la estancia hospitalaria, complicaciones o reingresos en ninguno de los grupos de recuperación mejorada. La raza negra se asoció con una mayor duración de la estadía tanto en el grupo de recuperación no mejorada (OR1,2, IC95% 1,1-1,3) como en el grupo de recuperación mejorada (OR1,2, IC95% 1,1-1,4). La adherencia a la recuperación mejorada se asoció con reducciones en las disparidades raciales en las complicaciones, ya que la raza negra se asoció con mayores probabilidades de complicaciones en el grupo de recuperación no mejorada (OR1,9, IC95% 1,2-3,0), pero no en el grupo de recuperación mejorada (OR0,8, IC95% 0,4-1,6).LIMITACIONES:No se evaluaron los detalles de los factores potenciales que afectan la adherencia al programa de recuperación mejorada y son el tema del trabajo actual de este equipo.CONCLUSIÓN:La alta vulnerabilidad social no se asoció con peores resultados entre los pacientes colorrectales con recuperación mejorada y sin recuperación mejorada. Una mayor adherencia al programa de recuperación se asoció con reducciones en las disparidades raciales en las tasas de complicaciones. Sin embargo, persisten disparidades en la duración de la estadía y es necesario trabajar para comprender los mecanismos subyacentes que impulsan estas disparidades. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Racial disparities in postoperative outcomes persist for patients with inflammatory bowel disease under a colorectal enhanced recovery program.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) reduce racial disparities in surgical outcomes for general colorectal surgery populations. It is unclear, however, if disparities in IBD populations are impacted by ERPs. METHODS: Retrospective study comparing IBD patients undergoing major elective colorectal operations before (2006-2014) and after (2015-2021) ERP implementation using ACS-NSQIP data. The primary outcome of length of stay (LOS) was analyzed by negative binomial regression, and secondary outcomes (complications and readmissions) by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 466 IBD patients, 47% were pre-ERP and 53% were ERP patients. In multivariable analysis stratified by ERP period, Black race was associated with increased odds of complications in the pre-ERP (OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.4-9.3) and ERP groups (OR 3.1 95%CI 1.3-7.6). Race was not a predictor of LOS or readmission in either group. High social vulnerability was associated with increased odds of readmission pre-ERP (OR 15.1, 95%CI 2.1-136.3), but this disparity was mitigated under ERPs (OR 1.4, 95%CI 0.4-5.6). CONCLUSION: While ERPs mitigated some disparities by social vulnerability, racial disparities persist in IBD populations even under ERPs. Further work is needed to achieve surgical equity for IBD patients.