Differences in Care Team Response to Patient Portal Messages by Patient Race and Ethnicity.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial growth in patient portal messaging. Higher message volumes have largely persisted, reflecting a new normal. Prior work has documented lower message use by patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups, but research has not examined differences in care team response to messages. Both have substantial ramifications on resource allocation and care access under a new care paradigm with portal messaging as a central channel for patient-care team communication. Objective: To examine differences in how care teams respond to patient portal messages sent by patients from different racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design in a large safety-net health system, response outcomes from medical advice message threads sent from January 1, 2021, through November 24, 2021, from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White patients were compared, controlling for patient and message thread characteristics. Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White patients with 1 or more adult primary care visits at Boston Medical Center in calendar year 2020 were included. Data analysis was conducted from June 23, 2022, through December 21, 2023. Exposure: Patient race and ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates at which medical advice request messages were responded to by care teams and the types of health care professionals that responded. Results: A total of 39 043 patients were included in the sample: 2006 were Asian, 21 600 were Black, 7185 were Hispanic, and 8252 were White. A total of 22 744 (58.3%) patients were women and mean (SD) age was 50.4 (16.7) years. In 2021, these patients initiated 57 704 medical advice request message threads. When patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups sent these messages, the likelihood of receiving any care team response was similar, but the types of health care professionals that responded differed. Black patients were 3.95 percentage points (pp) less likely (95% CI, -5.34 to -2.57 pp; P < .001) to receive a response from an attending physician, and 3.01 pp more likely (95% CI, 1.76-4.27 pp; P < .001) to receive a response from a registered nurse, corresponding to a 17.4% lower attending response rate. Similar, but smaller, differences were observed for Asian and Hispanic patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest lower prioritization of patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups during triaging. Understanding and addressing these disparities will be important for improving care equity and informing health care delivery support algorithms.

A Year of Inpatient Telehealth: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Relaxation of telehealth regulation enforcement during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic opened the door to massive expansion. Here we describe inpatient telehealth usage across a pediatric academic hospital during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We created hospital bed-specific inpatient telehealth accounts and monitored their use over a 1 year period using data from our video conferencing vendor. We matched data with our enterprise data warehouse based on session date and time to identify patients who participated in telehealth. We performed secondary analysis of all video conferences to identify additional multidisciplinary team and family meetings that did not leverage the bed-specific telehealth accounts. RESULTS: We hosted 6931 inpatient telehealth sessions associated with 1648 unique patients. Hospitalized patients participating in telehealth sessions were older and had markedly longer length of stay compared with those who did not use telehealth (median age 12 vs 8 years, P < .001; median length of stay 9.03 vs 2.03 days, P < .001). There were 2006 charges for telehealth sessions, half of which were from psychiatry providers. Secondary analysis revealed an additional 1132 sessions used for interdisciplinary team or family meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians used inpatient telehealth to support care of hospitalized pediatric patients during the coronavirus disease pandemic, particularly for mental health care and family meetings. These findings suggest ongoing opportunities for inpatient telehealth systems beyond the pandemic.

Trends in Telehealth Antibiotic Prescribing for Children Through the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Telehealth visits increased significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic without consensus on the appropriate scope of telehealth antibiotic prescribing within pediatric primary care. We describe telehealth antibiotic prescribing patterns within our statewide pediatric primary care network during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of a large statewide pediatric primary care network, we identified and analyzed telehealth and in-person encounters with oral antibiotics prescribed from March 2020 to July 2021. We focused on the top 5 general diagnosis groupings using International Classification of Disease 10 codes. RESULTS: Of the 55 926 encounters with an oral antibiotic prescribed, 12.5% were conducted via telehealth and 87.5% in person. The proportion of telehealth antibiotic encounters varied significantly according to diagnosis category (P <.001): ear (30.8%), skin and subcutaneous (21.8%), respiratory (18.8%), genitourinary (6.3%), and Lyme disease infections (3.8%). The proportion of telehealth antibiotic encounters for all diagnosis categories peaked in spring of 2020. The greatest proportion of telehealth antibiotic prescribing during the most recent 4weeks of the analysis were Lyme disease infections (11.7%) and for skin and subcutaneous tissue infections (3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth continues to be used to prescribe antibiotics even after the initial stage of the pandemic. Clinicians and patients would benefit from clearer guidelines about the appropriate use of antibiotics prescribed during telehealth encounters.

Inpatient Telehealth Experience of Patients With Limited English Proficiency: Cross-sectional Survey and Semistructured Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are at a higher risk of poor health outcomes and are less likely to use telehealth than English-speaking patients. To date, there is no formal evaluation of inpatient (IP) telehealth user experience of patients and their families by language preference during visits with their clinicians. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the experiences of English- and Spanish-speaking patients and their families using IP telehealth, as well as to evaluate the experience of Spanish interpreters providing services through IP telehealth. METHODS: We prospectively administered a survey to English- and Spanish-speaking patients and their families who used IP telehealth from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. We performed semistructured phone interviews of hospital-based Spanish interpreters who provided services through IP telehealth. RESULTS: A total of 661 surveys were administered, with completion rates of 18% (112/621) in English and 62% (25/40) in Spanish. On a 10-point scale, the overall satisfaction of Spanish speakers (median 10, IQR 10-10) was higher than that of English speakers (median 9, IQR 8-10; P=.001). Both English- and Spanish-speaking patients used IP telehealth for visits with their primary IP care team, subspecialty consultants, and other clinicians. Hospital tablets were used more often than personal devices, and only English-speaking patients used personal laptops. Patients and their families encountered challenges with log-in, team coordination with multiple users, and equipment availability. Interpreters encountered challenges with audio and video quality, communication, safety, and Wi-Fi access. CONCLUSIONS: Both English- and Spanish-speaking patients reported high satisfaction using IP telehealth across multiple disciplines despite the workflow challenges identified by interpreters. Significant investment is needed to provide robust infrastructure to support use by all patients, especially the integration of multiple users to provide interpreter services for patients with LEP.

Neighborhood Effects on Missed Appointments in a Large Urban Academic Multispecialty Practice.

BACKGROUND: Missed appointments diminish the continuity and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether missing scheduled appointments is associated with characteristics of the populations in places where patients reside. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study using data extracted from electronic health records linked to population descriptors for each patient's census tract of residence. PATIENTS: A total of 58,981 patients ≥18 years of age with 275,682 scheduled appointments during 2014-2015 at a multispecialty outpatient practice. MAIN MEASURES: We used multinomial generalized linear mixed models to examine associations between the outcomes of scheduled appointments (arrived, canceled, or missed) and selected characteristics of the populations in patients' census tracts of residence (racial/ethnic segregation based on population composition, levels of poverty, violent crime, and perceived safety and social capital), controlling for patients' age, gender, type of insurance, and type of clinic service. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 17.5% of appointments were missed. For appointments among patients residing in census tracts in the highest versus lowest quartile for each population metric, adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for missed appointments were 1.27 (CI 1.19, 1.35) for the rate of violent crime, 1.27 (CI 1.20, 1.34) for the proportion Hispanic, 1.19 (CI 1.12, 1.27) for the proportion living in poverty, 1.13 (CI 1.05, 1.20) for the proportion of the census tract population that was Black, and 1.06 (CI 1.01, 1.11 for perceived neighborhood safety. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of the places where patients reside are associated with missing scheduled appointments, including high levels of racial/ethnic segregation, poverty, and violent crime and low levels of perceived neighborhood safety. As such, targeting efforts to improve access for patients living in such neighborhoods will be particularly important to address underlying social determinants of access to health care.