Telehealth Use Following COVID-19 Within Patient-Sharing Physician Networks at a Rural Comprehensive Cancer Center: Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer centers rapidly adopted telehealth to deliver care remotely. Telehealth will likely remain a model of care for years to come and may not only affect the way oncologists deliver care to their own patients but also the physicians with whom they share patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine oncologist characteristics associated with telehealth use and compare patient-sharing networks before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in a rural catchment area with a particular focus on the ties between physicians at the comprehensive cancer center and regional facilities. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we obtained deidentified electronic health record data for individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire from 2018-2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify physician factors associated with telehealth encounters post COVID-19. Patient-sharing networks for each cancer type before and post COVID-19 were characterized with global network measures. Exponential-family random graph models were performed to estimate homophily terms for the likelihood of ties existing between physicians colocated at the hub comprehensive cancer center. RESULTS: Of the 12,559 encounters between patients and oncologists post COVID-19, 1228 (9.8%) were via telehealth. Patient encounters with breast oncologists who practiced at the hub hospital were over twice as likely to occur via telehealth compared to encounters with oncologists who practiced in regional facilities (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.17-4.15; P=.01). Patient encounters with oncologists who practiced in multiple locations were less likely to occur via telehealth, and this association was statistically significant for lung cancer care (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.76; P=.01). We observed an increase in ties between oncologists at the hub hospital and oncologists at regional facilities in the lung cancer network post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 (93/318, 29.3%, vs 79/370, 21.6%, respectively), which was also reflected in the lower homophily coefficients post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 for physicians being colocated at the hub hospital (estimate: 1.92, 95% CI 1.46-2.51, vs 2.45, 95% CI 1.98-3.02). There were no significant differences observed in breast cancer or colorectal cancer networks. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use and associated changes to patient-sharing patterns associated with telehealth varied by cancer type, suggesting disparate approaches for integrating telehealth across clinical groups within this health system. The limited changes to the patient-sharing patterns between oncologists at the hub hospital and regional facilities suggest that telehealth was less likely to create new referral patterns between these types of facilities and rather replace care that would otherwise have been delivered in person. However, this study was limited to the 2 years immediately following the initial outbreak of COVID-19, and longer-term follow-up may uncover delayed effects that were not observed in this study period.

An implementation and effectiveness study evaluating Conflict Analysis in VA residential substance abuse services: Whole Health informed self-guided online care.

CONTEXT: Whole Health is an emerging healthcare framework that emphasizes wellbeing in place of illness. Conflict Analysis (CA), an online self-guided assessment, leverages innovative diagnostic and therapeutic resources that shares Whole Health objectives, including helping users explore their identity and develop a personalized health plan and helping users develop resources to optimize their health. OBJECTIVES: Paper presents CA implementation-effectiveness study in a Veteran Affairs inpatient substance recovery care. DESIGN: Patients were randomized to CA or mindfulness control. Patients completed Whole Health outcomes measures at baseline, completion (post), and three-week follow-up. Interventions took 2.5 h. Attending psychologist assessed CA protocols and completed outcome evaluation. Due to Coronavirus, recruitment and follow-up were curtailed. SETTING: Study took place in a rural northern New England Veteran Affairs inpatient substance recovery unit. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures include The Personal Growth Initiative Scale, The Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, Perceived Stress Scale, The Patient Health Questionnaire, Perceived Psychological Wellbeing, and Perceived Therapeutic and Diagnostic Benefit. RESULTS: 12 patients were randomized, 11 completed post measures (CA=5; Mindfulness = 6), and 7 completed follow-up measures (CA=3; Mindfulness=4). CA offered significant Whole Health benefits when compared to control. Additionally, participant and clinician evaluations indicated that CA can be personally relevant, meaningful, and motivate therapeutic growth. Implications include extending CA research and expanding Whole Health related interventions. Although initial results suggest implementation feasibility and Whole Health benefit, more research is necessary to establish CA's utility within inpatient substance recovery care in particular and psychiatric rehabilitation in general.

Longitudinal Examination of COVID-19 Public Health Measures on Mental Health for Rural Patients With Serious Mental Illness.

INTRODUCTION: There is emerging evidence to support that the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures may be associated with negative mental health sequelae. Rural populations in particular may fair worse because they share many unique characteristics that may put them at higher risk for adverse outcomes with the pandemic. Yet, rural populations may also be more resilient due to increased sense of community. Little is known about the impact of the pandemic on the mental health and well-being of a rural population pre- and post-pandemic, especially those with serious mental illness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, mixed-methods study with assessments preceding the pandemic (between October 2019 and March 2020) and during the stay-at-home orders (between April 23, 2020, and May 4, 2020). Changes in hopelessness, suicidal ideation, connectedness, and treatment engagement were assessed using a repeated-measures ANOVA or Friedman test. RESULTS: Among 17 eligible participants, 11 people were interviewed. Overall, there were no notable changes in any symptom scale in the first 3-5 months before the pandemic or during the stay-at-home orders. The few patients who reported worse symptoms were significantly older (mean age: 71.7 years, SD: 4.0). Most patients denied disruptions to treatment, and some perceived telepsychiatry as beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients with serious mental illness may be fairly resilient in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic when they have access to treatment and supports. Longer-term outcomes are needed in rural patients with serious mental illness to better understand the impact of the pandemic on this population.