Parent, physician, and therapist experience of in-person, hybrid, and all-virtual models of physiatry care for children with special healthcare needs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare three models of pediatric physiatry care (in-person, hybrid, and all-virtual) in terms of parent experience and physician- and therapist-reported quality of care. We hypothesized that the all-virtual model would have lower parent experience scores and lower quality scores compared with the other two models of care. METHODS: We designed a convergent parallel mixed methods study incorporating a cluster-randomized crossover design. Quantitative data included surveys of parents, physicians, and therapists after visits to 13 medical therapy units in Northern California between January 2020 and January 2022. Qualitative data were collected in six focus groups with parents, physicians, and therapists. RESULTS: A total of 2,455 visits were completed for 1,281 unique children during the study period, including 507 in-person visits, 246 hybrid visits, and 1,702 all-virtual visits. There were no differences in parent experience scores between the three models of care. Physicians and therapists rated all-virtual visits significantly lower in terms of quality of care, parent education, and physical exam, compared with the other two models of care, but qualitative results highlighted specific instances where all-virtual visits could be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that parents, therapists, and physicians find a hybrid virtual model is an acceptable model of care that maintains the quality of care and facilitates parent education. All-virtual models may be appropriate for specific circumstances but are perceived as lower quality. Research exploring implementation of these models would be valuable for providing practical guidance in the future. WHAT'S NEW: This study is the first to compare three models of pediatric physiatry care (in-person, hybrid, all-virtual) from the perspectives of parents, physicians, and therapists. Qualitative data provides insights into the perceptions of these different stakeholders.

Adapting telehealth to address health equity: Perspectives of primary care providers across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has the potential to increase access to care for medically underserved patients. This qualitative study aimed to identify telecare practices used during the COVID-19 pandemic to meet the needs of patients experiencing homelessness, patients with disabilities, and patients with language preference other than English (LOE). METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative data analysis of 47 clinician interviews at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) around the country. Using thematic analysis, transcripts were coded by line-by-line by five qualitative researchers. A multidisciplinary team of telehealth experts, researchers and primary care clinicians reviewed memos and excerpts to generate major themes. RESULTS: We identified six main areas demonstrating how community providers developed strategies or practices to improve access to care for vulnerable patients: reaching patients experiencing homelessness, serving deaf and hard of hearing patients, improving access for patients with disabilities, serving patients with LOE, improving access for mental and behavioral health services, and educating patients about telehealth. During the pandemic, FQHCs developed innovative solutions to provide access to care for the unhoused, including using telehealth in shelters, vans, and distributing devices like mobile phones and tablets. Telehealth reduced transportation burdens for patients with disabilities and reduced no-show rates for mental health services by adapting group therapy via telehealth features (like break-out rooms) and increasing provider capacity. CONCLUSION: Our study identified strategies adopted by FQHCs to serve underserved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the need for enduring strategies to improve health equity through telehealth..

Telemedicine vs Telephone Consultations and Medication Prescribing Errors Among Referring Physicians: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.

Importance: Critically ill children presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in non-children's hospitals are at high risk for experiencing medical errors, including medication errors. Video telemedicine consultations with pediatric specialists have the potential to reduce the risk of medication errors beyond the current standard of care, telephone consultations. Objective: To compare the rates of ED physician-related medication errors among critically ill children randomized to receive either video telemedicine or telephone consultations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized, unbalanced crossover trial was conducted at 15 community EDs in northern California between September 2014 and March 2018. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to January 2023. Participants included acutely ill children younger than 15 years presenting to a participating ED. Interventions: Participating EDs were randomized to use video telemedicine or telephone for consultations with pediatric critical care physicians according to 1 of 4 unbalanced (3 telemedicine to 1 telephone) crossover treatment assignment sequences. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pharmacists reviewed medical records to document physician-related medication errors using a previously validated instrument. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to create models with the medication order as the unit of analysis and adjusting for age, the log-transformed Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool score, and hospital study period. Results: A total of 696 patient encounters were included in the trial (mean [SD] age, 4.2 [4.6] years; median [IQR] age, 2.1 [0.5-2.1] years; 304 female [43.7%]), with 537 patient encounters (77.2%) assigned to video telemedicine and 159 patient encounters (22.8%) assigned to telephone. At least 1 physician-related medication error occurred for 87 patients (12.5%), including 20 of 159 patients (12.6%) in the telephone cohort and 67 of 537 patients (12.5%) in the telemedicine cohort. Of the 2414 medication orders, errors occurred in 124 cases (5.1%), including 26 of 513 orders (5.1%) in the telephone cohort and 98 of 1901 orders (5.2%) in the telemedicine cohort. In the multivariable analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of experiencing a medication error among those assigned to telemedicine was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.49-1.52; P = .61). Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized crossover trial found no statistically significant differences in physician-related medication errors between critically ill children assigned to receive telephone consultations vs video telemedicine consultations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877810.

Comparison of Treatment Modality Crossovers in Telehealth and In-Person Behavioral Health Treatment in Rural Communities.

Background: Treatment crossovers occur when one mode of treatment is begun and then a different mode of treatment is utilized. Treatment crossovers are frequently examined in randomized controlled trials, but have been rarely noted or quantitatively evaluated in usual care treatment studies. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the extent of modality crossovers during behavioral health treatment. Methods: The nonrandomized, prospective, multisite research design involved two active treatment groups-a telehealth treatment cohort and an in-person treatment cohort. Treatment modality (telehealth or in person) during each encounter was compared overall and across two time periods (pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic) between the telehealth cohort and the in-person cohort. Results: Overall, modality crossovers were relatively uncommon (6.3%). However, patients in the in-person treatment cohort were more than twice as likely to have an encounter through telehealth (8.5%) than patients in the telehealth treatment cohort were to have an in-person encounter (3.4%) even though they had the same average number of encounters. The occurrence of off-mode encounters was particularly influenced by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: In this multisite usual care study comparing telehealth and in-person behavioral health treatment, modality crossovers were more common in the in-person cohort than the telehealth cohort, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because telehealth availability has increased, crossovers are likely to increase in patients receiving multiple encounters for behavioral or chronic conditions and their occurrence should be noted by both researchers and practitioners.

Telehealth and In-Person Behavioral Health Services in Rural Communities Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multisite Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered widespread adjustments across the US health care system. Telehealth use showed a substantial increase in mental health conditions and services due to acute public health emergency (PHE) behavioral health needs on top of long-standing gaps in access to behavioral health services. How health systems that were already providing behavioral telehealth services adjusted services and staffing during this period has not been well documented, particularly in rural areas with chronic shortages of behavioral health providers and services. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates patient and treatment characteristic changes from before the COVID-19 PHE to during the PHE within both telehealth and in-person behavioral health services provided in 95 rural communities across the United States. METHODS: We used a nonrandomized, prospective, multisite research design involving 2 active treatment groups. The telehealth cohort included all patients who initiated telehealth treatment regimens during the data collection period. A comparison group included a cohort of patients who initiated in-person treatment regimen. Patient enrollment occurred on a rolling basis, and data collection was extended for 3 months after treatment initiation for each patient. Chi-square tests compared changes from pre-PHE to PHE time periods within telehealth and in-person treatment cohorts. The dependent measures included patient diagnosis, clinicians providing treatment services, and type of treatment services provided at each encounter. The 4780 patients in the telehealth cohort and the 6457 patients in the in-person cohort had an average of 3.5 encounters during the 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The encounters involving anxiety, dissociative, and stress-related disorders in the telehealth cohort increased from 30% (698/2352) in the pre-PHE period to 35% (4632/12,853) in the PHE period (P<.001), and encounters involving substance use disorders in the in-person cohort increased from 11% (468/4249) in the pre-PHE period to 18% (3048/17,047) in the PHE period (P<.001). The encounters involving treatment service codes for alcohol, drug, and medication-assisted therapy in the telehealth cohort increased from 1% (22/2352) in the pre-PHE period to 11% (1470/13,387) in the PHE period (P<.001); likewise, encounters for this type of service in the in-person cohort increased from 0% (0/4249) in the pre-PHE period to 16% (2687/17,047) in the PHE period (P<.001). From the pre-PHE to the PHE period, encounters involving 60-minute psychotherapy in the telehealth cohort increased from 8% (190/2352) to 14% (1802/13,387; P<.001), while encounters involving group therapy in the in-person cohort decreased from 12% (502/4249) to 4% (739/17,047; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged health service providers, and they adjusted the way both telehealth and in-person behavioral therapy services were delivered. Looking forward, future research is needed to explicate the interaction of patient, provider, setting, and intervention factors that influenced the patterns observed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virtual Family-Centered Rounds in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Family-centered rounds is recognized as a best practice for hospitalized children, but it has only been possible for children whose families can physically be at the bedside during hospital rounds. The use of telehealth to bring a family member virtually to the child’s bedside during rounds is a promising solution. We aim to evaluate the impact of virtual family-centered rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit on parental and neonatal outcomes. Methods: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will randomize families of hospitalized infants to have the option to use telehealth for virtual rounds (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention-arm families will also have the option to participate in rounds in-person or to not participate in rounds. All eligible infants who are admitted to this single-site neonatal intensive care unit during the study period will be included. Eligibility requires that there be an English-proficient adult parent or guardian. We will measure participant-level outcome data to test the impact on family-centered rounds attendance, parent experience, family-centered care, parent activation, parent health-related quality of life, length of stay, breastmilk feeding, and neonatal growth. Additionally, we will conduct a mixed methods implementation evaluation using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Discussion: The findings from this trial will increase our understanding about virtual family-centered rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit. The mixed methods implementation evaluation will enhance our understanding about the contextual factors that influence the implementation and rigorous evaluation of our intervention. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05762835. Status: Not yet recruiting. First Posted: 3/10/2023; Last Update Posted: 3/10/2023.

Virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family-centered rounds is recognized as a best practice for hospitalized children, but it has only been possible for children whose families can physically be at the bedside during hospital rounds. The use of telehealth to bring a family member virtually to the child's bedside during hospital rounds is a promising solution. We aim to evaluate the impact of virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit on parental and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will randomize families of hospitalized infants to have the option to use telehealth for virtual hospital rounds (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention-arm families will also have the option to participate in hospital rounds in-person or to not participate in hospital rounds. All eligible infants who are admitted to this single-site neonatal intensive care unit during the study period will be included. Eligibility requires that there be an English-proficient adult parent or guardian. We will measure participant-level outcome data to test the impact on family-centered rounds attendance, parent experience, family-centered care, parent activation, parent health-related quality of life, length of stay, breastmilk feeding, and neonatal growth. Additionally, we will conduct a mixed methods implementation evaluation using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will increase our understanding about virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit. The mixed methods implementation evaluation will enhance our understanding about the contextual factors that influence the implementation and rigorous evaluation of our intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05762835. Status: Not yet recruiting. First posted: March 10, 2023; last update posted: March 10, 2023.

Change in Drug Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (DUDIT-C) with Telehealth Treatment Compared to in-Person Treatment.

Background and Objectives: There is little published evidence for the effectiveness of telehealth in the treatment of substance use disorders. Methods: We analyzed Drug Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (DUDIT-C) scores from 360 patients who completed the measure as part of outpatient behavioral health treatment at rural clinic sites. Some patients received in-person care, while others received telehealth. Results were analyzed using multiple regression. Results: Mean DUDIT-C scores improved with treatment in both cohorts. Changes on the DUDIT-C were related to initial scores. Treatment modality (telehealth vs in-person) had no distinguishable association with outcomes. Discussion and Conclusions: Results showed no discernible difference in outcomes between telehealth and in-person cohorts. Telehealth was as effective as in-person care in the treatment of substance use disorders, and appears to be equivalent to in-person care in rural outpatient settings.

Comparison of Telehealth and In-Person Behavioral Health Services and Payment in a Large Rural Multisite Usual Care Study.

Background: Telehealth and in-person behavioral health services have previously shown equal effectiveness, but cost studies have largely been limited to travel savings for telehealth cohorts. The purpose of this analysis was to compare telehealth and in-person cohorts, who received behavioral health services in a large multisite study of usual care treatment approaches to examine relative value units (RVUs) and payment. Methods: We used current procedural terminology codes for each encounter to identify RVUs and Medicare payment rates. Mixed linear regression models compared telehealth and in-person cohorts on RVUs, per-encounter payment rates, and total-episode payment rates. Results: We found the behavioral health services provided by telehealth to have modest, but statistically significantly lower RVUs (i.e., less provider work in time spent and case complexity), per-encounter payments, and total episode payments than the in-person cohort. Despite Medicare rates discounting payments for nonphysician providers and the in-person cohort using clinical social workers more frequently, the services provided by the telehealth cohort still had lower payments. Thus, the differences observed are due to the in-person cohort receiving higher payment RVU services than the telehealth cohort, which was more likely to receive briefer therapy sessions and other less expensive services. Conclusions: Behavioral health services provided by telehealth used services with lower RVUs than behavioral health services provided in-person, on average, even after adjusting for patient demographics and diagnosis. Observed differences in Medicare payments resulted from the provider type and services used by the two cohorts; thus, costs and insurance reimbursements may vary for others.

Nurse-to-family telehealth for pediatric transfers: protocol for a feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children presenting to emergency departments of community hospitals may require transfer to a children's hospital for more definitive care, but the transfer process can be distressing and burdensome to patients, families, and the healthcare system. Using telehealth to bring the children's hospital nurse virtually to the bedside of the child in the emergency department has the potential to promote family-centered care and minimize triage issues and other transfer-associated burdens. To explore the feasibility of the nurse-to-family telehealth intervention, we are conducting a pilot study. METHODS: This parallel cluster randomized controlled feasibility and pilot trial will randomize six community emergency departments to use either nurse-to-family telehealth (intervention) or usual care (control) for pediatric inter-facility transfers. All eligible children presenting to a participating site during the study period who require inter-facility transfer will be included. Eligibility requires that there be an English-speaking adult parent or guardian at the emergency department bedside. We will examine feasibility objectives that assess protocol assignment adherence, fidelity, and survey response rates. We will measure subject-level exploratory outcome data to test feasibility of data collection and to obtain effect size estimates; exploratory outcomes include family-centered care, family experience, parent acute stress, parent distress, and change in level of care. Additionally, we will conduct a mixed methods implementation evaluation using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will increase our understanding about nurse-to-family telehealth during pediatric transfers. The mixed methods implementation evaluation will provide relevant insight about the contextual factors that influence the implementation and rigorous evaluation of our intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05593900. First Posted: October 26, 2022. Last Update Posted: December 5, 2022.

Impact of Tele-Emergency Consultations on Pediatric Interfacility Transfers: A Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial.

Importance: Pediatric referral centers are increasingly using telemedicine to provide consultations to help care for acutely ill children presenting to rural and community emergency departments (EDs). These pediatric telemedicine consultations may help improve physician decision-making and may reduce the frequency of overtriage and interfacility transfers. Objective: To examine the use of pediatric critical care telemedicine vs telephone consultations associated with risk-adjusted transfer rates of acutely ill children from community and rural EDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster-randomized crossover trial was conducted between November 18, 2015, and March 26, 2018. Analyses were conducted from January 19, 2018, to July 23, 2022, 2022. Participants included acutely ill children aged 14 years and younger presenting to a participating ED in 15 rural and community EDs in northern California. Interventions: Participating EDs were randomized to use telemedicine or telephone for consultations with pediatric critical care physicians according to 1 of 4 unbalanced (3 telemedicine:1 telephone) crossover treatment assignment sequences. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intention-to-treat, treatment-received, and per-protocol analyses were performed to determine the risk of transfer using mixed effects Poisson regression analyses with random intercepts for presenting EDs to account for hospital-level clustering. Results: A total of 696 children (392 boys [56.3%]; mean [SD] age, 4.2 [4.6] years) were enrolled. Of the 537 children (77.2%) assigned to telemedicine, 251 (46.7%) received the intervention. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients assigned to the telemedicine arm were less likely to be transferred compared with patients assigned to the telephone arm after adjusting for patient age, severity of illness, and hospital study period (risk rate [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99). The adjusted risk of transfer was significantly lower in the telemedicine arm compared with the telephone arm in both the treatment-received analysis (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94) and the per-protocol analysis (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized trial, the use of telemedicine to conduct consultations for acutely ill children in rural and community EDs resulted in less frequent overall interfacility transfers than consultations done by telephone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877810.

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.

Impact of telemedicine on visit attendance for paediatric patients receiving endocrinology specialty care.

BACKGROUND: Children in rural communities often lack access to subspecialty medical care. Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to these services but its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated for paediatric patients with endocrine conditions besides diabetes. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between telemedicine and visit attendance among patients who received care from paediatric endocrinologists at an academic medical centre in northern California between 2009-2017. METHODS: We abstracted demographic data, encounter information and medical diagnoses from the electronic health record for patients ≤18 years of age who attended at least one in-person or telemedicine encounter with a paediatric endocrinologist during the study period. We used a mixed effects logistic regression model - adjusted for age, diagnosis and distance from subspecialty care - to explore the association between telemedicine and visit attendance. RESULTS: A total of 40,941 encounters from 5083 unique patients were included in the analysis. Patients who scheduled telemedicine visits were predominantly publicly insured (97%) and lived a mean distance of 161 miles from the children's hospital. Telemedicine was associated with a significantly higher odds of visit attendance (odds ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 2.15-3.02, p < 0.001) compared to in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that telemedicine is associated with higher odds of visit attendance for paediatric endocrinology patients and supports the conclusion that use of telemedicine may improve access to subspecialty care for rural and publicly insured paediatric populations.

Perceptions of Pediatric Endocrinologists and Neurologists on the Drivers of Telehealth Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent and drivers of telehealth use variation across clinicians within the same pediatric subspecialties. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, 8 pediatric medical groups in California shared data for eleven subspecialties. We calculated the proportion of total visits delivered via telehealth by medical group for each subspecialty and identified the 8 most common International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnoses for telehealth and in-person visits in endocrinology and neurology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 pediatric endocrinologists and neurologists and applied a positive deviance approach comparing high versus low utilizers to identify factors that influenced their level of telehealth use. RESULTS: In 2019, medical groups that submitted quantitative data conducted 1.8 million visits with 549,306 unique pediatric patients. For 3 subspecialties, there was relatively little variation in telehealth use across medical groups: urology (mean: 16.5%, range: 9%-23%), orthopedics (mean: 7.2%, range: 2%-14%), and cardiology (mean: 11.2%, range: 2%-24%). The remaining subspecialties, including neurology (mean: 58.6%, range: 8%-93%) and endocrinology (mean: 49.5%, range: 24%-92%), exhibited higher levels of variation. For both neurology and endocrinology, the top diagnoses treated in-person were similar to those treated via telehealth. There was limited consensus on which clinical conditions were appropriate for telehealth. High telehealth utilizers were more comfortable conducting telehealth visits for new patients and often worked in practices with innovations to support telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians perceive that telehealth may be appropriate for a range of clinical conditions when the right supports are available.

Measuring the impact of a "Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center" (VPTC) model of care using telemedicine for acutely injured children versus the standard of care: study protocol for a prospective stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care in the treatment of children with physical trauma presenting to non-designated pediatric trauma centers is consultation with a pediatric trauma center by telephone. This includes contacting a pediatric trauma specialist and transferring any child with a potentially serious injury to a regionalized level I pediatric trauma center. This approach to care frequently results in medically unnecessary transfers and may place undue burdens on families. A newer model of care, the "Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center" (VPTC), uses telemedicine to make the expertise of a level I pediatric trauma center virtually available to any hospital. While the use of the VPTC model of care is increasing, there have been no studies comparing the VPTC to standard care of injured children at non-designated trauma centers with respect to patient- and family-centered outcomes. The goal of this study is to compare the current standard of care to the VPTC with respect to family-centered outcomes developed by parents and community advisory boards. METHODS: We will use a stepped-wedge trial design to enroll children with physical trauma presenting to ten hospitals, including level II, level III, and non-designated trauma centers. The primary outcome measures are parent/family experience of care and distress 3 days following injury. Secondary aims include 30-day healthcare utilization, parent/family out-of-pocket costs at 3 days and 30 days after injury, transfer rates, and parent/family distress 30 days following injury. We expect at least 380 parents/families of children will be eligible for the study following an emergency department physician's request for a level I pediatric trauma center consultation. We will evaluate parent/family experience of care and distress using previously validated instruments, healthcare utilization by family recollection and medical record abstraction, and out-of-pocket costs using standard economic analyses. DISCUSSION: We expect that the findings from this study will inform other level I pediatric trauma centers and non-pediatric trauma centers on how to improve their systems of care for injured children. The results will help to optimize communication, confidence, and shared decision-making between parents/families and clinical staff from both the transferring and receiving hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469036. Registered July 13, 2020 before start of inclusion.

Comparison of in-person vs. telebehavioral health outcomes from rural populations across America.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates outcomes from two federal grant programs: the Evidence-Based Tele-Behavioral Health Network Program (EB THNP) funded from September 2018 to August 2021 and the Substance Abuse Treatment Telehealth Network Grant Program (SAT TNGP) funded from September 2017 to August 2020. As part of the health services implementation program, the aims of this study were to evaluate outcomes in patient symptoms of depression and anxiety across the programs' 17 grantees and 95 associated sites, with each grantee having data from telehealth patients and from an in-person comparison group. METHODS: The research design is a prospective multi-site observational study. Each grantee provided data on a nonrandomized convenience sample of telehealth patients and an in-person comparison group from sites with similar rural characteristics and during the same time period. Patient characteristics were collected at treatment initiation, and clinical outcome measures were collected at baseline and monthly. The validated clinical outcome measure instruments included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression symptoms and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale for anxiety-related symptoms. Linear mixed models, with grantee as the random effect, were used to determine the association of behavioral health delivery (telehealth versus in-person) on the one-month change in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Across a total of 1,514 patients, one-month change scores were improved indicating that PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores decreased from baseline to the one-month follow-up at similar rates in both the in-person and telehealth groups. Reduction in scores averaged 2.8 for the telehealth treatment group and 2.9 for the in-person treatment group in the PHQ-9 subsample and 2.0 for the telehealth treatment group and 2.4 for the in-person treatment group in the GAD-7 subsample. There was no statistically significant association between the modality of care (telehealth treatment group versus in-person comparison group) and the one-month change scores for either PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Individuals with higher baseline scores demonstrated the greatest decrease in scores for both measures. Upon adjusting for baseline scores and grantee program, patient demographics were not found to be significantly associated with change in anxiety or depression symptoms. CONCLUSION: In our very large pragmatic study comparing behavioral health treatment delivered to a population of patients in rural, underserved communities, we found no clinical or statistical differences in improvements in depression or anxiety symptoms as measured by the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 between patients treated via telehealth or in-person.

Enhancing the Implementation of the Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center Using Practical, Robust, Implementation and Sustainability Model: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Background: This article describes factors related to adoption, implementation, and effectiveness of the Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center intervention, which uses telehealth for trauma specialist consultations for seriously injured children. We aimed at (1) measuring RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) implementation outcomes and (2) identifying PRISM (Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model) contextual factors that influenced the implementation outcomes. Methods: This interim implementation evaluation of our telehealth trial used a convergent mixed-methods design. The quantitative component was a cross-sectional analysis of pediatric trauma encounters using electronic health records. The qualitative component was a thematic analysis of written and verbal feedback from providers and family advisory board meetings. We compared the quantitative and qualitative data by synthesizing them in a joint display table, organized by RE-AIM dimensions. We categorized these key findings into the PRISM domains. Results: During the first 10 months of this trial, 246 subjects were randomized, with 177 assigned to standard care and 69 assigned to telehealth. Four referring sites transitioned from standard care into their intervention period. PRISM contextual factors that influenced RE-AIM implementation outcomes included the following findings: Providers struggle to remember, interpret, and navigate intervention workflows; providers have preconceived ideas about the intervention purpose; the intervention mitigates parents' anxieties about the transfer process. Discussion: This study revealed implementation challenges that influence the overall success of this telehealth trial. Early identification of these challenges allows our team the opportunity to address them now to optimize the intervention reach, adoption, and implementation. This early action will ultimately enhance the success of our trial and the ability of our intervention to achieve broad impact.

Pediatric Telemedicine: Lessons Learned During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Opportunities for Growth.

The accelerated uptake of telemedicine during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in valuable experience and evidence on the delivery of telemedicine for pediatric patients. The pandemic has also highlighted inequities and opportunities for improvement. This review discusses lessons learned during the pandemic, focusing on provider-to-patient virtual encounters. Recent evidence on education and training, developing and adapting clinical workflows, patient assessment and treatment, and family-centered care is reviewed. Opportunities for future research in pediatric telemedicine are discussed, specifically with regard to engaging pediatric patients, improving and measuring access to care, addressing health equity, and expanding the evidence base.

Managing innovation: a qualitative study on the implementation of telehealth services in rural emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth studies have highlighted the positive benefits of having the service in rural areas. However, there is evidence of limited adoption and utilization. Our objective was to evaluate this gap by exploring U.S. healthcare systems' experience in implementing telehealth services in rural hospital emergency departments (TeleED) and by analyzing factors influencing its implementation and sustainability. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 key informants from six U.S. healthcare systems (hub sites) that provided TeleED services to 65 rural emergency departments (spoke sites). All used synchronous high-definition video to provide the service. We applied an inductive qualitative analysis approach to identify relevant quotes and themes related to TeleED service uptake facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: We identified three stages of implementation: 1) the start-up stage; 2) the utilization stage; and 3) the sustainment stage. At each stage, we identified emerging factors that can facilitate or impede the process. We categorized these factors into eight domains: 1) strategies; 2) capability; 3) relationships; 4) financials; 5) protocols; 6) environment; 7) service characteristics; and 8) accountability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of healthcare innovation can be influenced by multiple factors. Our study contributes to the field by highlighting key factors and domains that play roles in specific stages of telehealth operation in rural hospitals. By appreciating and responding to these domains, healthcare systems may achieve more predictable and favorable implementation outcomes. Moreover, we recommend strategies to motivate the diffusion of promising innovations such as telehealth.