Parent, Physician, and Therapist Experience of In-Person, Hybrid, and All-Virtual Models of Physiatry Care for Children with Special Health Care 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 2455 visits were completed for 1281 unique children during the study period, including 507 in-person visits, 246 hybrid visits, and 1702 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.

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..

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.

Analyzing a Cost-Effectiveness Dataset: A Speech and Language Example for Clinicians.

Cost-effectiveness analysis, the most common type of economic evaluation, estimates a new option's additional outcome in relation to its extra costs. This is crucial to study within the clinical setting because funding for new treatments and interventions is often linked to whether there is evidence showing they are a good use of resources. This article describes how to analyze a cost-effectiveness dataset using the framework of a net benefit regression. The process of creating estimates and characterizing uncertainty is demonstrated using a hypothetical dataset. The results are explained and illustrated using graphs commonly employed in cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude with a call to action for researchers to do more person-level cost-effectiveness analysis to produce evidence of the value of new treatments and interventions. Researchers can utilize cost-effectiveness analysis to compare new and existing treatment mechanisms.

Economic Evaluation of Telemedicine Consultations to Reduce Unnecessary Neonatal Care Transfers.

OBJECTIVES: To perform an economic evaluation to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of making available telemedicine consultations from a healthcare payer perspective, and to estimate the economic impacts of telemedicine under a hypothetical scenario in which all rural hospitals providing level I neonatal care in California had access to telemedicine consultations from neonatologists at level III and level IV neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). STUDY DESIGN: We developed standard decision models with assumptions derived from primary data and the literature. Telemedicine costs included equipment installation and operation costs. Probabilistic analysis with Monte Carlo simulation was performed to address model uncertainties and to estimate 95% probabilistic confidence intervals (PCIs). All costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: Our probabilistic analysis estimated the ROI to have a mean value of 2.23 (95% PCI, -0.7 to 6.0). That is, a $1 investment in this telemedicine model would yield a net medical expenditure saving of $1.23. "Cost saving" was observed for 75% of the hypothetical 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. For the state of California, the estimated mean annual net savings was $661 000. CONCLUSIONS: Providing telemedicine and making available consultations to rural hospitals providing level I neonatal care are likely to reduce medical expenditures by reducing potentially avoidable transfers of newborns to level III and IV NICUs, offsetting all telemedicine-related costs.

Parent Experience and Cost Savings Associated With a Novel Tele-physiatry Program for Children Living in Rural and Underserved Communities.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate parent and therapist experience and cost savings from the payer perspective associated with a novel tele-physiatry program for children living in rural and underserved communities. DESIGN: We designed a noninferiority, cluster-randomized crossover study at 4 school-based clinics to evaluate parent experience and perceived quality of care between a telemedicine-based approach in which the physiatrist conducts the visit remotely with an in-person therapist and a traditional in-person physiatrist clinic. SETTING: Four school-based clinics in Northern California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 268 encounters (124 telemedicine and 144 in-person) were completed by 200 unique patients (N=200). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parent and therapist experience scores. RESULTS: For parents and therapists, experience and perceived quality of care were high with no significant differences between telemedicine and in-person encounters. For parents whose children received a telemedicine encounter, 40 (54.8%) reported no preference for their child's subsequent encounter, 21 (28.8%) preferred a physiatrist telemedicine visit, and 12 (16.4%) preferred a physiatrist in-person visit. From the payer perspective, costs were $100 higher for in-person clinics owing to physician mileage reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: We found that school-based tele-physiatry for children with special health care needs is not inferior to in-person encounters with regard to parent and provider experience and perceived quality of care. Tele-physiatry was also associated with an average cost savings of $100 per clinic to the payer.

Disparities in Telemedicine Use for Subspecialty Diabetes Care During COVID-19 Shelter-In-Place Orders.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine use rapidly and dramatically increased for management of diabetes mellitus. It is unknown whether access to telemedicine care has been equitable during this time. This study aimed to identify patient-level factors associated with adoption of telemedicine for subspecialty diabetes care during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using data from a single academic medical center. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore associations between telemedicine use and demographic factors for patients receiving subspecialty diabetes care between March 19 and June 30, 2020. We then surveyed a sample of patients who received in-person care to understand why these patients did not use telemedicine. RESULTS: Among 1292 patients who received subspecialty diabetes care during the study period, those over age 65 were less likely to use telemedicine (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22-0.52, P < .001), as were patients with a primary language other than English (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.91, P = .02), and patients with public insurance (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.84, P = .001). Perceived quality of care and technological barriers were the most common reasons cited for choosing in-person care during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been disparities in telemedicine use by age, language, and insurance for patients with diabetes mellitus. We anticipate telemedicine will continue to be an important care modality for chronic conditions in the years ahead. Significant work must therefore be done to ensure that telemedicine services do not introduce or widen population health disparities.