Post-discharge early assessment with remote video link (PEARL) initiative for patients discharged from hospital medicine services.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the availability and accessibility of outpatient care following hospital discharge. Hospitalists (physicians) and hospital medicine advanced practice providers (HM-APPs) coordinate discharge care of hospitalized patients; however, it is unknown if they can deliver post-discharge virtual care and overcome barriers to outpatient care. The objective was to develop and provide post-discharge virtual care for patients discharged from hospital medicine services. METHODS: We developed the Post-discharge Early Assessment with Remote video Link (PEARL) initiative for HM-APPs to conduct a post-discharge video visit (to review recommendations) and telephone follow-up (to evaluate adherence) with patients 2-6 days following hospital discharge. Participants included patients discharged from hospital medicine services at an institution's hospitals in Rochester (May 2020-August 2020) and Austin (November 2020-February 2021) in Minnesota, US. HM-APPs also interviewed patients about their experience with the video visit and completed a survey on their experience with PEARL. RESULTS: Of 386 eligible patients, 61.4% were enrolled (n = 237/386) including 48.1% women (n = 114/237). In patients with complete video visit and telephone follow-up (n = 141/237), most were prescribed new medications (83.7%) and took them as prescribed (93.2%). Among five classes of chronic medications, patient-reported adherence ranged from 59.2% (narcotics) to 91.5% (anti-hypertensives). Patient-reported self-management of 12 discharge recommendations ranged from 40% (smoking cessation) to 100% (checking rashes). Patients reported benefit from the video visit (agree: 77.3%) with an equivocal preference for video visits over clinic visits. Among HM-APPs who responded to the survey (88.2%; n = 15/17), 73.3% reported benefit from visual contact with patients but were uncertain if video visits would reduce emergency department visits. CONCLUSION: In this novel initiative, HM-APPs used video visits to provide care beyond their hospital role, reinforce discharge recommendations for patients, and reduce barriers to outpatient care. The effect of this initiative is under evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

ABLE to support patient financial capacity: A qualitative analysis of cost conversations in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how costs of care are discussed in real clinical encounters and what humanistic elements support them. METHODS: A qualitative thematic analysis of 41 purposively selected transcripts of video-recorded clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from a corpus of 220 randomly selected videos from 8 practice-based randomized trials and 1 pre-post prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: Our qualitative analysis identified two major themes: the first, Space Needed for Cost Conversations, describes patients' needs regarding their financial capacity. The second, Caring Responses, describes humanistic elements that patients and clinicians can bring to clinical encounters to include good quality cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that strengthening patient-clinician human connections, focusing on imbalances between patient resources and burdens, and providing space to allow potentially unexpected cost discussions to emerge may best support high quality cost conversations and tailored care plans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend clinicians consider 4 aspects of communication, represented by the mnemonic ABLE: Ask questions, Be kind and acknowledge emotions, Listen for indirect signals and (discuss with) Every patient. Future research should evaluate the practicality of these recommendations, along with system-level improvements to support implementation of our recommendations.

Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence.

Objective: To investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence. Patients and Methods: Using a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015. Results: Most patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence. Conclusion: In this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Preventiometer, a Novel Wellness Assessment Device, Used With Healthy Volunteers: A Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on a pilot study to assess the incorporation of a novel wellness assessment device, the Preventiometer (iPEx5 GmbH, Greifswald, Germany), into an academic medical practice. The present follow-up study expands on those data and evaluates the acceptability of the assessment process in a larger sample population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate participant satisfaction with the Preventiometer wellness assessment. METHODS: A total of 60 healthy volunteers participated. Each participant underwent a comprehensive wellness assessment with the Preventiometer and received data from more than 30 diagnostic tests. A 32-question survey (with a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10) was used to rate the wellness assessment tests and participants' impressions of the wellness assessment. RESULTS: Each assessment had a significantly higher rating than 7 (P < .001), and the majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied (98.3%), and they strongly agreed that they were engaged the entire time (93.2%), and liked the instant test results feature of the Preventiometer device (93.2%). CONCLUSION: This study confirms findings from our previous pilot study regarding the feasibility of the Preventiometer as a wellness assessment tool. The study further demonstrated that 98% of participants were satisfied with the assessment and that all of them would recommend it to others.

Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients' knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre-post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues. CONCLUSION: Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients' cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.

Identifying Opportunities for Advancing Weight Management in Primary Care.

Objective: Much has been written about the patients' perspective concerning weight management in health care. The purpose of this survey study was to assess perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses toward patient weight management and identify possible areas of growth. Patients and Methods: We emailed a weight management-focused survey to 674 eligible participants (437 [64.8%] nurses and 237 [35.2%] PCPs) located in 5 outpatient primary care clinics. The survey focused on opportunities, practices, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and beliefs. A total of 219 surveys were returned (137 [62.6%] from nurses and 82 [34.4%] from PCPs). Results: Among 219 responders, 85.8% were female and 93.6% were white non-Hispanic. In this study, PCPs and nurses believed obesity to be a major health problem. While PCPs felt more equipped than nurses to address weight management (P < .001) and reported receiving more training than nurses (50.0% vs 17.6%, respectively), both felt the need for more training on obesity (73.8% and 79.4%, respectively). Although, PCPs also spent more patient contact time providing weight management services versus nurses (P < .001), the opportunity/practices score was lower for PCPs than nurses (-0.35 ± 0.44 vs -0.17 ± 0.41, P < .001) with PCPs more likely to say they lacked the time to discuss weight and they worried it would cause a poor patient-PCP relationship. The knowledge/confidence score also differed significantly between the groups, with nurses feeling less equipped to deal with weight management issues than PCPs (-0.42 ± 0.43 vs -0.03 ± 0.55, P < .001). Neither group seemed very confident, with those in the PCP group only answering with an average score of neutral. Conclusion: By asking nurses and PCP general questions about experiences, attitudes, knowledge, and opinions concerning weight management in clinical care, this survey has identified areas for growth in obesity management. Both PCPs and nurses would benefit from additional educational training on weight management.