Telemedicine Versus In-Person Primary Care: Treatment and Follow-up Visits.

BACKGROUND: Beyond initial COVID-19 pandemic emergency expansions of telemedicine use, it is unclear how well primary care telemedicine addresses patients' needs. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment and follow-up visits (office, emergency department, hospitalization) between primary care video or telephone telemedicine and in-person office visits. DESIGN: Retrospective design based on administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. SETTING: Large, integrated health care delivery system with more than 1300 primary care providers, between April 2021 and December 2021 (including the COVID-19 pandemic Delta wave). PATIENTS: 1 589 014 adult patients; 26.5% were aged 65 years or older, 54.9% were female, 22.2% were Asian, 7.4% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 46.5% were White, 21.5% lived in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status, and 31.8% had a chronic health condition. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment outcomes included medication or antibiotic prescribing and laboratory or imaging ordering. Follow-up visits included in-person visits to the primary care office or emergency department or hospitalization within 7 days. Outcomes were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics overall and stratified by clinical area (abdominal pain, gastrointestinal concerns, back pain, dermatologic concerns, musculoskeletal pain, routine care, hypertension or diabetes, and mental health). RESULTS: Of 2 357 598 primary care visits, 50.8% used telemedicine (19.5% video and 31.3% telephone). After adjustment, medications were prescribed in 46.8% of office visits, 38.4% of video visits, and 34.6% of telephone visits. After the visit, 1.3% of in-person visits, 6.2% of video visits, and 7.6% of telephone visits had a 7-day return in-person primary care visit; 1.6% of in-person visits, 1.8% of video visits, and 2.1% of telephone visits were followed by an emergency department visit. Differences in follow-up office visits were largest after index office versus telephone visits for acute pain conditions and smallest for mental health. LIMITATIONS: In the study setting, telemedicine is fully integrated with ongoing EHRs and with clinicians, and the study examines an insured population during the late COVID-19 pandemic period. Observational comparison lacks detailed severity or symptom measures. Follow-up was limited to 7 days. Clinical area categorization uses diagnosis code rather than symptom. CONCLUSION: In-person return visits were somewhat higher after telemedicine compared with in-person primary care visits but varied by specific clinical condition. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Implementing a COVID-19 Virtual Observation Unit in Emergency Medicine: Frontline Clinician and Staff Experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic pushed hospitals to deliver care outside of their four walls. To successfully scale virtual care delivery, it is important to understand how its implementation affects frontline workers, including their teamwork and patient-provider interactions. We conducted in-depth interviews of 17 clinicians and staff involved with the COVID-19 Virtual Observation Unit (CVOU) in the emergency department (ED) of an academic hospital. The program leveraged remote patient monitoring and mobile integrated health care. In the CVOU (vs. the ED), participants observed increases in interactions among clinicians and staff, patient participation in care delivery, attention to nonmedical factors, and involvement of coordinators and paramedics in patient care. These changes were associated with unintended, positive consequences for staff, namely, feeling heard, experience of meaningfulness, and positive attitudes toward virtual care. This study advances research on reconfiguration of roles following implementation of new practices using digital tools, virtual work interactions, and at-home care delivery.

Primary Care Visits Are Timelier When Patients Choose Telemedicine: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

Introduction: Telemedicine could increase timely access to primary care-a key dimension of care quality. Methods: Among patient-scheduled appointments with their own primary care providers using the online portal in a large integrated health care delivery system, we measured the association between visit type (telemedicine or in-person) and appointment timeliness. We calculated the calendar days between the scheduling date and the actual appointment time. Results: Overall, 2,178,440 primary care visits were scheduled and 14% were done through telemedicine. The mean calendar days between the scheduling and the appointment time were 1.80 for telephone visits, 2.29 for video visits, and 3.52 for in-person visits. After multivariate adjustment, 66.61% (confidence interval [95% CI]: 66.44-66.79) of telephone visits, 56.58% (95% CI: 55.90-57.27) of video visits, and 46.49% (95% CI: 46.42-46.57) of in-person visits were scheduled to occur within 1 day of making the appointment. Conclusions: In a setting with comparable in-person and telemedicine scheduling availability, choosing telemedicine was associated with more timely access to primary care.

Treatment and Follow-up Care Associated With Patient-Scheduled Primary Care Telemedicine and In-Person Visits in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Telemedicine visits can offer patients convenient access to a clinician, but it is unclear whether treatment differs from that with in-person visits or how often patients require in-person follow-up. Objective: To examine whether physician prescribing and orders differ between telemedicine and office visits, whether physicians conducting telemedicine visits are more likely to require in-person follow-up, and whether telemedicine visits are associated with more health events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all patients who scheduled primary care appointments through the patient portal of a large integrated health care delivery system newly implementing patient-scheduled video telemedicine visits from January 2016 to May 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted rates of any medication prescribed or laboratory tests or imaging ordered and rates of follow-up health care utilization (in-person visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations) within 7 days after the index visit, stratified by index primary care visit type, were generated using multivariable adjustment for patient, access, and clinical characteristics. Results: This study included 1 131 722 patients (611 821 [54%] female; mean [SD] age, 43 [22] years) with 2 178 440 total appointments (307 888 [14%] telemedicine), of which 13.5% were for patients younger than 18 years, 22.2% were for patients 65 years or older, and 54.9% were for female patients. After adjustment, 38.6% (95% CI, 38.0%-39.3%) of video visits, 34.7% (95% CI, 34.5%-34.9%) of telephone visits, and 51.9% (95% CI, 51.8%-52.0%) of office visits had any medication prescribed; laboratory tests or imaging were ordered for 29.2% (95% CI, 28.5%-29.8%) of video visits, 27.3% (95% CI, 27.1%-27.5%) of telephone visits, and 59.3% (95% CI, 59.3%-59.4%) of clinic visits. After adjustment, follow-up visits within 7 days occurred after 25.4% (95% CI, 24.7%-26.0%) of video visits, 26.0% (95% CI, 25.9%-26.2%) of telephone visits, and 24.5% (95% CI, 24.5%-24.6%) of office visits. Adjusted emergency department visits and rates of hospitalizations were not statistically significantly different by primary care index visit type. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patient self-scheduled primary care telemedicine visits within ongoing patient-physician relationships, prescribing and orders were significantly lower for telemedicine visits than for clinic visits, with slightly higher follow-up office visits for telemedicine but no difference in health events (emergency department visits or hospitalizations). Video or telephone visits may be a convenient and efficient way to access primary care and address patient needs.

Inpatient-outpatient shared electronic health records: telemedicine and laboratory follow-up after hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES: Continuity of patient information across settings can improve transitions after hospital discharge, but outpatient clinicians often have limited access to complete information from recent hospitalizations. We examined whether providers' timely access to clinical information through shared inpatient-outpatient electronic health records (EHRs) was associated with follow-up visits, return emergency department (ED) visits, or readmissions after hospital discharge in patients with diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: Stepped-wedge observational study. METHODS: As an integrated delivery system staggered implementation of a shared inpatient-outpatient EHR, we studied 241,510 hospital discharges in patients with diabetes (2005-2011), examining rates of outpatient follow-up office visits, telemedicine (phone visits and asynchronous secure messages), laboratory tests, and return ED visits or readmissions (as adverse events). We used multivariate logistic regression adjusting for time trends, patient characteristics, and medical center and accounting for patient clustering to calculate adjusted follow-up rates. RESULTS: For patients with diabetes, provider use of a shared inpatient-outpatient EHR was associated with a statistically significant shift toward follow-up delivered through a combination of telemedicine and outpatient laboratory tests, without a traditional in-person visit (from 22.9% with an outpatient-only EHR to 27.0% with a shared inpatient-outpatient EHR; P < .05). We found no statistically significant differences in 30-day return ED visits (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.09) or readmissions (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.06) with the shared EHR compared with the outpatient-only EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time clinical information availability during transitions between health care settings, along with robust telemedicine access, may shift the method of care delivery without adversely affecting patient health outcomes. Efforts to expand interoperability and information exchange may support follow-up care efficiency.

Association of Mobile Patient Portal Access With Diabetes Medication Adherence and Glycemic Levels Among Adults With Diabetes.

Importance: Online patient portals support self-management, and mobile devices expand portal access, but whether this translates to improvements in diabetes outcomes is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of adding mobile patient portal access with diabetes medication adherence and glycemic levels among adults with diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with diabetes treated at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large, integrated health care delivery system, from April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Inclusion criteria were adults with diabetes with an oral diabetes prescription at baseline and no insulin use. Data were analyzed from March 2018 to March 2019. Exposures: Patient portal access status for each calendar month from April 2015 to December 2017, categorized as never used, used from a computer only, used from a mobile device only, or used from both computer and mobile device. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medication adherence, measured by monthly percentage of days covered (PDC), and glycemic levels, measured by changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. The association of portal access with study outcomes was assessed using linear regression with patient-level fixed effects and adjusting for time-changing variables, stratified by baseline HbA1c level. Results: Among 111 463 included patients (mean [SD] age, 63.79 [12.93] years; 59 918 [53.76%] men), the number of patients using the portal from both a computer and mobile device increased over time from 38 371 patients (34.42%) in April 2015 to 57 920 patients (61.71%) in December 2017. Among patients with no prior portal access, adding computer-only portal access was associated with an increase in PDC of 1.16 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.70) percentage points and a change of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03) percentage points in HbA1c level, and adding both mobile and computer portal access was associated with an increase in PDC of 1.67 (95% CI, 1.10 to 2.23) percentage points and a change of -0.13 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10) percentage points in HbA1c level. Among patients with higher baseline HbA1c level (>8.0%), changing from no portal access to both computer and mobile access was associated with an increase in PDC of 5.09 (95% CI, 3.78 to 6.40) percentage points and a change of -0.19 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.15) percentage points in HbA1c level. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that providing patients with computer patient portal access and combining it with mobile patient portal access are associated with significantly improved diabetes medication adherence and glycemic control, with greater benefits among patients with more clinical need. Convenient access to portal self-management tools through a mobile device could significantly improve diabetes management.

Portal Use Among Patients With Chronic Conditions: Patient-reported Care Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Personal health records offer patients access to view their own health information and to manage their care online through secure patient portal tools. Little is known about the patient-reported experience in using health portals to manage chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: In a patient-centered research study, we examined how using portal tools affects patient health care experiences among patients with chronic conditions. We also examined barriers among nonportal users. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional patient survey. SUBJECTS: Patients with a chronic condition in an integrated delivery system offering a patient portal. MEASURES: Respondents reported barriers, preferences, and experiences in using the patient portal, and whether using the portal changed their overall health. RESULTS: Among all the 1824 respondents (70% response rate), portal nonusers reported preferring in-person health care (54%) or experiencing internet access barriers (41%). Portal users reported that using the portal was convenient (90%), the information available was useful (92%), and that it integrated well with other health care (92%). Among users, 31% reported that using the portal had improved their overall health. After adjustment, patients were significantly more likely to report that portal use improved their health if they had also reported convenience, information usefulness, or integration with other care (P<0.05). Reassuringly, patient-reported impacts on overall health did not vary by patient characteristics (including age, race, sex, education, income, complex conditions). CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic conditions using the portal reported convenience, information usefulness, and integration of the patient portal with their health care; these may act as potential pathways improving health.

Patients with complex chronic conditions: Health care use and clinical events associated with access to a patient portal.

BACKGROUND: For patients with diabetes, many with multiple complex chronic conditions, using a patient portal can support self-management and coordination of health care services, and may impact the frequency of in-person health care visits. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of portal access on the number of outpatient visits, emergency visits, and preventable hospitalizations. DESIGN: Observational study comparing patients' visit rates with and without portal access, using marginal structural modeling with inverse probability weighting estimates to account for potential bias due to confounding and attrition. SETTING: Large integrated delivery system which implemented a patient portal (2006-2007). PATIENTS: We examined 165,447 patients with diabetes defined using clinical registries. Our study included both patients with diabetes-only and patients with multiple complex chronic conditions (diabetes plus asthma, congestive artery disease, congestive heart failure, or hypertension). MEASUREMENTS: We examined rates of outpatient office visits, emergency room visits, and preventable hospitalizations (for ambulatory care sensitive conditions). RESULTS: Access to a patient portal was associated with significantly higher rates of outpatient office visits, in both patients with diabetes only and in patients with multiple complex conditions (p<0.05). In patients with multiple complex chronic conditions, portal use was also associated with significantly fewer emergency room visits (3.9 fewer per 1,000 patients per month, p<0.05) and preventable hospital stays (0.8 fewer per 1,000 patients per month, p<0.05). In patients with only diabetes, the results were directionally consistent but not statistically significantly associated with emergency room visits and preventable hospital stays. LIMITATIONS: Observational study in an integrated delivery system. CONCLUSION: Access to a patient portal can increase engagement in outpatient visits, potentially addressing unmet clinical needs, and reduce downstream health events that lead to emergency and hospital care, particularly among patients with multiple complex conditions.

Bridging the digital divide: mobile access to personal health records among patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Some patients lack regular computer access and experience a digital divide that causes them to miss internet-based health innovations. The diffusion of smartphones has increased internet access across the socioeconomic spectrum, and increasing the channels through which patients can access their personal health records (PHRs) could help bridge the divide in PHR use. We examined PHR use through a computer-based Web browser or mobile device. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional historical cohort analysis. METHODS: Among adult patients in the diabetes registry of an integrated healthcare delivery system, we studied the devices used to access their PHR during 2016. RESULTS: Among 267,208 patients with diabetes, 68.1% used the PHR in 2016; 60.6% of all log-ins were via computer and 39.4% were via mobile device. Overall, 63.9% used it from both a computer and mobile device, 29.6% used only a computer, and 6.5% used only a mobile device. After adjustment, patients who were black, Hispanic, or Asian; lived in lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods; or had lower engagement were all significantly more likely to use the PHR only from a mobile device (P <.05). Patients using the PHR only via mobile device used it less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile-ready PHRs may increase access among patients facing a digital divide in computer use, disproportionately reaching racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES patients. Nonetheless, even with a mobile-optimized and app-accessible PHR, differences in PHR use by race/ethnicity and SES remain. Continued efforts are needed to increase equitable access to PHRs among patients with chronic conditions.

The Digital Divide and Patient Portals: Internet Access Explained Differences in Patient Portal Use for Secure Messaging by Age, Race, and Income.

BACKGROUND: Online access to health records and the ability to exchange secure messages with physicians can improve patient engagement and outcomes; however, the digital divide could limit access to web-based portals among disadvantaged groups. OBJECTIVES: To understand whether sociodemographic differences in patient portal use for secure messaging can be explained by differences in internet access and care preferences. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey to examine the association between patient sociodemographic characteristics and internet access and care preferences; then, the association between sociodemographic characteristics and secure message use with and without adjusting for internet access and care preference. SUBJECTS: One thousand forty-one patients with chronic conditions in a large integrated health care delivery system (76% response rate). MEASURES: Internet access, portal use for secure messaging, preference for in-person or online care, and sociodemographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Internet access and preference mediated some of the differences in secure message use by age, race, and income. For example, using own computer to access the internet explained 52% of the association between race and secure message use and 60% of the association between income and use (Sobel-Goodman mediation test, P<0.001 for both). Education and sex-related differences in portal use remained statistically significant when controlling for internet access and preference. CONCLUSIONS: As the availability and use of patient portals increase, it is important to understand which patients have limited access and the barriers they may face. Improving internet access and making portals available across multiple platforms, including mobile, may reduce some disparities in secure message use.

Patient-initiated e-mails to providers: associations with out-of-pocket visit costs, and impact on care-seeking and health.

OBJECTIVES: To understand when patients use secure e-mail messaging with healthcare providers across several types of questions or concerns, associations between out-of-pocket costs for in-person visits and use of secure messaging, and to examine patient-reported impacts on care-seeking behavior and overall health. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system, with access to a patient portal to send secure e-mail messages to providers at no out-of-pocket cost. METHODS: The study included patients with a chronic condition (N = 1041). We described patient-reported preferences for contacting providers and patient-reported impact of e-mail use on phone calls, in-person visits, and overall health. We used multivariate analyses to examine patient characteristics associated with using e-mail as a first contact method, and effects on care-seeking and health. RESULTS: Overall, 56% of patients sent their provider an e-mail within 1 year, and 46% reported e-mail as their first method of contact for 1 or more types of medical concerns. After adjustment, higher out-of-pocket costs for in-person visits were significantly associated with choosing e-mail as a first method of contact (P < .05). Among patients who had e-mailed their provider, 42% reported that it reduced their phone contacts, 36% reduced in-person office visits and 32% reported e-mailing improved their overall health. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported using e-mail broadly to initiate conversations with their providers, and patients with higher out-of-pocket costs for in-person visits were more likely to choose e-mail as a first contact method. Use of secure e-mails reduced patients' use of other types of healthcare and resulted in improved overall health.

Financial barriers to care among low-income children with asthma: health care reform implications.

IMPORTANCE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes subsidies that reduce patient cost sharing for low-income families. Limited information on the effects of cost sharing among children is available to guide these efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between cost sharing, income, and care seeking and financial stress among children with asthma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A telephone survey in 2012 about experiences during the prior year within an integrated health care delivery system. Respondents included 769 parents of children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma. Of these, 25.9% of children received public subsidies; 21.7% were commercially insured with household incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and 18.2% had higher cost-sharing levels for all services (e.g., ≥$75 for emergency department visits). We classified children with asthma based on (1) current receipt of a subsidy (i.e., Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program) or potential eligibility for ACA low-income cost sharing or premium subsidies in 2014 (i.e., income ≤250%, 251%-400%, or >400% of the FPL) and (2) cost-sharing levels for prescription drugs, office visits, and emergency department visits. We examined the frequency of changes in care seeking and financial stress due to asthma care costs across these groups using logistic regression, adjusted for patient/family characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Switching to cheaper asthma drugs, using less medication than prescribed, delaying/avoiding any office or emergency department visits, and financial stress (eg, cutting back on necessities) because of the costs of asthma care. RESULTS: After adjustment, parents at or below 250% of the FPL with lower vs higher cost-sharing levels were less likely to delay or avoid taking their children to a physician's office visit (3.8% vs. 31.6%; odds ratio, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.39]) and the emergency department (1.2% vs. 19.4%; 0.05 [0.01-0.25]) because of cost; higher-income parents and those whose children were receiving public subsidies (eg, Medicaid) were also less likely to forego their children's care than parents at or below 250% of the FPL with higher cost-sharing levels. Overall, 15.6% of parents borrowed money or cut back on necessities to pay for their children's asthma care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cost-related barriers to care among children with asthma were concentrated among low-income families with higher cost-sharing levels. The ACA's low-income subsidies could reduce these barriers for many families, but millions of dependents for whom employer-sponsored family coverage is unaffordable could remain at risk for cost-related problems because of ACA subsidy eligibility rules.

Implementation of an outpatient electronic health record and emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and office visits among patients with diabetes.

IMPORTANCE: The US federal government is spending billions of dollars in physician incentives to encourage the meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs). Although the use of EHRs has potential to improve patient health outcomes, the existing evidence has been limited and inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between implementing a commercially available outpatient EHR and emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and office visits for patients with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: Staggered EHR implementation across outpatient clinics in an integrated delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California) between 2005 and 2008 created an opportunity for studying changes associated with EHR use. Among a population-based sample of 169,711 patients with diabetes between 2004 and 2009, we analyzed 4,997,585 person-months before EHR implementation and 4,648,572 person-months after an EHR was being used by patients' physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We examined the association between EHR use and unfavorable clinical events (ED visits and hospitalizations) and office visit use among patients with diabetes, using multivariable regression with patient-level fixed-effect analyses and adjustment for trends over time. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, use of the EHR was associated with a statistically significantly decreased number of ED visits, 28.80 fewer visits per 1000 patients annually (95% CI, 20.28 to 37.32), from a mean of 519.12 visits per 1000 patients annually without using the EHR to 490.32 per 1000 patients when using the EHR. The EHR was also associated with 13.10 fewer hospitalizations per 1000 patients annually (95% CI, 7.37 to 18.82), from a mean of 251.60 hospitalizations per 1000 patients annually with no EHR to 238.50 per 1000 patients annually when using the EHR. There were similar statistically significant reductions in nonelective hospitalizations (10.92 fewer per 1000 patients annually) and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (7.08 fewer per 1000 patients annually). There was no statistically significant association between EHR use and office visit rates. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with diabetes, use of an outpatient EHR in an integrated delivery system was associated with modest reductions in ED visits and hospitalizations but not office visit rates. Further studies are needed to quantify the association of EHR use with changes in costs.

Emergency physicians' knowledge and attitudes of clinical decision support in the electronic health record: a survey-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to investigate clinician knowledge of and attitudes toward clinical decision support (CDS) and its incorporation into the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: This was an electronic survey of emergency physicians (EPs) within an integrated health care delivery system that uses a complete EHR. Randomly assigned respondents completed one of two questionnaires, both including a hypothetical vignette and self-reported knowledge of and attitudes about CDS. One vignette version included CDS, and the other did not (NCDS). The vignette described a scenario in which a cranial computed tomography (CCT) is not recommended by validated prediction rules (the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network [PECARN] rules). In both survey versions, subjects responded first with their likely approach to evaluation and then again after receiving either CDS (the PECARN prediction rules) or no additional support. Descriptive statistics were used for self-reported responses and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of self-reported knowledge and use of the PECARN rules, as well as use of vignette responses. RESULTS: There were 339 respondents (68% response rate), with 172 of 339 (51%) randomized to the CDS version. Initially, 25% of respondents to each version indicated they would order CCTs. After CDS, 30 of 43 (70%) of respondents who initially would order CCTs changed their management decisions to no CCT versus two of 41 (5%) with the NCDS version (chi-square, p = 0.003). In response to self-report questions, 81 of 338 respondents (24%) reported having never heard of the PECARN prediction rules, 122 of 338 (36%) were aware of the rules but not their specifics, and 135 of 338 (40%) reported knowing the rules and their specifics. Respondents agreed with favorable statements about CDS (75% to 96% agreement across seven statements) and approaches to its implementation into the EHR (60% to 93% agreement across seven statements). In multivariable analyses, EPs with tenure of 5 to 14 years (odds ratio [AOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30 to 0.86) and for 15 years or more (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.70) were significantly less likely to report knowing the specifics of the PECARN prediction rules compared with EPs who practiced for fewer than 5 years. In addition, in the initial vignette responses (across both versions), physicians with ≥15 years of ED tenure compared to those with fewer than 5 years of experience (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.69), and those reporting knowing the specifics of the PECARN prediction rules were less likely to order CCTs (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: EPs incorporated pediatric head trauma CDS via the EHR into their clinical judgment in a hypothetical scenario and reported favorable opinions of CDS in general and their inclusion into the EHR.

Consumer-directed health plans with health savings accounts: whose skin is in the game and how do costs affect care seeking?

BACKGROUND: Employers are increasingly offering high-deductible health insurance plans with associated health savings accounts (HSAs), but there is limited information on account contributions or effects on patient care seeking. OBJECTIVE: We examined HSA contributions and their source, patient-reported effects of costs on care seeking, and reports of financial burden. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted telephone interviews with 488 adult members of small group of employer-sponsored HSA-eligible plans within an integrated delivery system. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HSA contribution sources and amounts varied with 32% receiving an employer contribution and also making their own employee contribution, 35% only receiving an employer contribution (no employee contribution), 19% only making their own contribution (no employer contribution), and 14% with no HSA contribution from either source. After adjustment for respondent characteristics, those who made their own HSA contributions in addition to their employer's contribution were significantly more likely to report that costs affected their care-seeking behavior, compared with those with only employer contributions (39% vs. 31% for emergency department and 60% vs. 49% for office visits, all P<0.05). Respondents who contributed to their HSA or who paid out-of-pocket for care were significantly more likely to report financial burdens than those with only employer contributions (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of consumers receive employer contributions to their HSA, but few have fully funded accounts. Those with only an employer contribution reported fewer changes in their care-seeking behavior and were less likely to report experiencing financial burdens.

Is the Kaiser Permanente model superior in terms of clinical integration?: a comparative study of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California and the Danish healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Integration of medical care across clinicians and settings could enhance the quality of care for patients. To date, there is limited data on the levels of integration in practice. Our objective was to compare primary care clinicians' perceptions of clinical integration and three sub-aspects in two healthcare systems: Kaiser Permanente, Northern California (KPNC) and the Danish healthcare system (DHS). Further, we examined the associations between specific organizational factors and clinical integration within each system. METHODS: Comparable questionnaires were sent to a random sample of primary care clinicians in KPNC (n = 1103) and general practitioners in DHS (n = 700). Data were analysed using multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: More clinicians in KPNC perceived to be part of a clinical integrated environment than did general practitioners in the DHS (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 2.28, 4.12). Further, more KPNC clinicians reported timeliness of information transfer (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.13), agreement on roles and responsibilities (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.47) and established coordination mechanisms in place to ensure effective handoffs (OR = 6.80, 95% CI: 4.60, 10.06). None of the considered organizational factors in the sub-country analysis explained a substantial proportion of the variation in clinical integration. CONCLUSIONS: More primary care clinicians in KPNC reported clinical integration than did general practitioners in the DHS. Focused measures of clinical integration are needed to develop the field of clinical integration and to create the scientific foundation to guide managers searching for evidence based approaches.