Barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis of interviews with cystic fibrosis care team members.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced cystic fibrosis (CF) care programs to rapidly shift from in-person care delivery to telehealth. Our objective was to provide a qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers to: 1) implementing high-quality telehealth and 2) navigating reimbursement for telehealth services. METHODS: We used data from the 2020 State of Care CF Program Survey (n=286 U.S. care programs) administered in August-September to identify two cohorts of programs, with variation in telehealth quality (n=12 programs) and reimbursement (n=8 programs). We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with CF program directors and coordinators in December 2020, approximately 9 months from onset of the pandemic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify facilitators and barriers of implementation, and inductive thematic analysis to identify facilitators and barriers of reimbursement. RESULTS: Factors differentiating programs with greater and lower perceived telehealth quality included telehealth characteristics (perceived advantage over in-person care, cost, platform quality); external influences (needs and resources of those served by the CF program), characteristics of the CF program (compatibility with workflows, relative priority, available resources); characteristics of team members (individual stage of change), and processes for implementation (engaging patients and teams). Reimbursement barriers included documentation to optimize billing; reimbursement of multi-disciplinary team members, remote monitoring, and telephone-only telehealth; and lower volume of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A number of factors are associated with successful implementation and reimbursement of telehealth. Future efforts should provide guidance and incentives that support telehealth delivery and infrastructure, share best practices across CF programs, and remove barriers.

Patient and family experience of telehealth care delivery as part of the CF chronic care model early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CF centers shifted to a telehealth delivery model. Our study aimed to determine how people with CF (PwCF) and their families experienced telehealth and assessed its quality and acceptability for future CF care. METHODS: The CF Patient and Family State of Care Survey (PFSoC) was fielded from August 31-October 30, 2020. The PFSoC explored themes of overall telehealth quality, ease of use, desirability, and preference for a future mix of in-person and telehealth care. Demographic covariates considered included: gender, age, CFTR modulator status, and region of residence. RESULTS: 424 PwCF and parents of PwCF responded (47% parents). Most (81%) reported a telehealth visit which included a MD/APP and nurse team members. 91% found telehealth easy to use, and 66% reported similar/higher quality than in-person care. One-third (34%) reported the highest desire for future telehealth care, with 45% (n =212) desiring 50% or more of visits conducted via telehealth. Adults were more likely than parents to report highest desire for future telehealth (64% vs. 36%). Respondents who perceived telehealth as similar/higher quality were more likely to desire future telehealth compared to those who perceived telehealth as lower quality (96% vs. 50%). Mixed methods analysis revealed themes affecting perceptions of telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: PwCF desire for future telehealth was influenced by perception of quality and age. Several themes emerged that need to be explored as telehealth is adapted into the CF chronic care model, especially when thinking about integration into pediatric care.

Evaluating barriers to and promoters of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic at U.S. cystic fibrosis programs.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) care programs in the United States rapidly adopted telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding factors that promote or impede telehealth will inform planning for future telehealth-enabled care models. METHODS: Adult, pediatric, and affiliate CF care programs in the United States (n = 287) were surveyed twice eight months apart in 2020-2021 about telehealth use. Programs were asked to describe barriers to and promoters of telehealth. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of programs provided telehealth services. In the first CF Care Program State of Care Survey (SoC1), programs estimated that 57% of patients exclusively received in-person care, 36% of patients received telehealth by phone/computer with video, and 8% of patients received telephone-only care. In the second CF Care Program State of Care Survey (SoC2), programs estimated that 80% of visits were in-person and 15% were via audio and video telehealth. Pediatric programs (21%) were less likely than adult (37%) or affiliate (41%) programs to recommend telehealth (p = 0.007). All programs ranked lack of internet access as the highest barrier to patient engagement with telehealth. Promoters of telehealth were increased accessibility and avoidance of infection transmission. Top ranked changes to improve telehealth were expanded provision of remote monitoring devices and technology access. Similar proportions of program types anticipated institutional telehealth expansion. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CF programs in the United States identified factors to improve future care delivery via telehealth. Targeting specific barriers and promoters will improve the use and quality of telehealth throughout the care center network.

Telehealth use in cystic fibrosis during COVID-19: Association with race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an uptake of telehealth in cystic fibrosis care. Previous studies show disparities in telehealth use based on socioeconomic status (SES). We aimed to: (1) understand telehealth use and perceptions and (2) identify the facilitators and barriers to telehealth use among people with CF and their families (PwCF) from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the 2020 Cystic Fibrosis State of Care surveys completed by PwCF (PFSoC), CF Care Programs (SoC1) and the CF Foundation Patient Registry (CFFPR). RESULTS: A total of 424 PwCF and 286 programs responded to the PFSoC and SoC1. Among PwCF, 90% self-identified as White, 6% as Hispanic/Latino, and 2% as Black. Racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to have had a telehealth visit (p=.015). This difference was pronounced among the Hispanic/Latino population (p<.01). Telehealth use did not differ by health insurance and was similarly offered independent of financial status. Compared to PwCF who denied financial constraints, those who reported financial difficulties found telehealth more difficult to use (p=.018) and were less likely to think that their concerns (p=.010) or issues that mattered most to them (p=.020) were addressed during telehealth. Programs perceived lack of technology, language barriers, and home conditions as barriers to telehealth in vulnerable populations. CONCLUSION: PFSoC and SoC1 identified differences in telehealth use and care perceptions by ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic characteristics. Further studies are needed to understand how telehealth can change access to CF care in diverse subpopulations.

Remote monitoring in telehealth care delivery across the U.S. cystic fibrosis care network.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) programs and people with CF (PwCF) employed various monitoring methods for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper characterizes experiences with remote monitoring across the U.S. CF community. METHODS: The CF Foundation (CFF) sponsored distribution of home spirometers (April 2020 to May 2021), surveys to PwCF and CF programs (July to September 2020), and a second program survey (April to May 2021). We used mixed methods to explore access, use, and perspectives regarding the use of remote monitoring in future care. RESULTS: By October 2020, 13,345 spirometers had been distributed, and 19,271 spirometers by May 2021. Programs (n=286) estimated proportions of PwCF with home devices increased over seven months: spirometers (30% to 70%), scales (50% to 70%), oximeters (5% to 10%) with higher estimates in adult programs for spirometers and oximeters. PwCF (n=378) had access to scales (89%), followed by oximeters (48%) and spirometers (47%), often using scales and oximeters weekly, and spirometers monthly. Over both surveys, some programs had no method to collect respiratory specimens for cultures associated with telehealth visits (47%, n=132; 41%, n=118). Most programs (81%) had a process for phlebotomy associated with a telehealth visit, primarily through off-site labs. Both PwCF and programs felt future care should advance remote monitoring and recommended improvements for access, training, and data collection systems. CONCLUSIONS: PwCF and programs experienced unprecedented access to remote monitoring and raised its importance for future care. Improvements to current systems may leverage these shared experiences to augment future care models.

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists. RESULTS: Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019118457.

"Provoking conversations": case studies of organizations where Option Grid™ decision aids have become 'normalized'.

BACKGROUND: Implementing patient decision aids in clinic workflow has proven to be a challenge for healthcare organizations and physicians. Our aim was to determine the organizational strategies, motivations, and facilitating factors to the routine implementation of Option Grid™ encounter decision aids at two independent settings. METHOD: Case studies conducted by semi-structured interview, using the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework for thematic analysis. Twenty three interviews with physicians, nurses, hospital staff and stakeholders were conducted at: 1) CapitalCare Medical Group in Albany, New York; 2) HealthPartners Clinics in Minneapolis, Minnesota. RESULTS: 'Coherent' motivations were guided by financial incentives at CapitalCare, and by a 'champion' physician at HealthPartners. Nurses worked 'collectively' at both settings and played an important role at sites where successful implementation occurred. Some physicians did not understand the perceived utility of Option Grid™, which led to varying degrees of implementation success across sites. The appraisal work (reflexive monitoring) identified benefits, particularly in terms of information provision. Physicians at both settings, however, were concerned with time pressures and the suitability of the tool for patients with low levels of health literacy. CONCLUSION: Although both practice settings illustrated the mechanisms of normalization postulated by the theory, the extent to which Option Grid™ was routinely embedded in clinic workflow varied between sites, and between clinicians. Implementation of new interventions will require attention to an identified rationale (coherence), and to the collective action, cognitive participation, and assessment of value by organizational members of the organization.

Shared decision making in Italy: An updated revision of the current situation.

The aim of this paper is to update the previous review on the state of patient and public participation in healthcare in Italy. Policymakers consider patient involvement an important aspect in health care decisions and encourage patients to actively participate in the clinical interaction. Nevertheless, the term shared decision making (SDM) is still not clearly defined. Patient associations promote patient participation in health care decisions. Several experts attended the latest consensus conference about patient engagement to reach a consensus on the definition of SDM. Research regarding SDM in Italy continues to increase with 17 articles published between 2012 and 2017. Researchers have assessed the variables associated with patient involvement and explored the use of the SDM approach in different medical settings. Despite the dedicated SDM initiative, researchers in Italy recognize room for improvement. Work is needed to reach a common language regarding SDM and its mechanisms to implement this approach at the clinical level.