Patient Experiences Navigating Care Coordination For Long COVID: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how to best evaluate, diagnose, and treat long COVID, which presents challenges for patients as they seek care. OBJECTIVE: Understand experiences of patients as they navigate care for long COVID. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving interviews with patients about topics related to seeking and receiving care for long COVID. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, spoke English, self-identified as functioning well prior to COVID infection, and reported long COVID symptoms continued to impact their lives at 3 months or more after a COVID infection. APPROACH: Patients were recruited from a post-COVID recovery clinic at an academic medical center from August to September 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Participants (n=21) reported experiences related to elements of care coordination: access to care, evaluation, treatment, and ongoing care concerns. Some patients noted access to care was facilitated by having providers that listened to and validated their symptoms; other patients reported feeling their access to care was hindered by providers who did not believe or understand their symptoms. Patients reported confusion around how to communicate their symptoms when being evaluated for long COVID, and they expressed frustration with receiving test results that were normal or diagnoses that were not directly attributed to long COVID. Patients acknowledged that clinicians are still learning how to treat long COVID, and they voiced appreciation for providers who are willing to try new treatment approaches. Patients expressed ongoing care concerns, including feeling there is nothing more that can be done, and questioned long-term impacts on their aging and life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings shed light on challenges faced by patients with long COVID as they seek care. Healthcare systems and providers should consider these challenges when developing strategies to improve care coordination for patients with long COVID.

Reporting time toxicity in prospective cancer clinical trials: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to assess the measurement and reporting of time toxicity (i.e., time spent receiving care) within prospective oncologic studies. METHODS: On July 23, 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were queried for prospective or randomized controlled trials (RCT) from 1984 to 2023 that reported time toxicity as a primary or secondary outcome for oncologic treatments or interventions. Secondary analyses of RCTs were included if they reported time toxicity. The included studies were then evaluated for how they reported and defined time toxicity. RESULTS: The initial query identified 883 records, with 10 studies (3 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 5 secondary analyses of RCTs) meeting the final inclusion criteria. Treatment interventions included surgery (n = 5), systemic therapies (n = 4), and specialized palliative care (n = 1). The metric "days alive and out of the hospital" was used by 80% (n = 4) of the surgical studies. Three of the surgical studies did not include time spent receiving ambulatory care within the calculation of time toxicity. "Time spent at home" was assessed by three studies (30%), each using different definitions. The five secondary analyses from RCTs used more comprehensive metrics that included time spent receiving both inpatient and ambulatory care. CONCLUSIONS: Time toxicity is infrequently reported within oncologic clinical trials, with no standardized definition, metric, or methodology. Further research is needed to identify best practices in the measurement and reporting of time toxicity to develop strategies that can be implemented to reduce its burden on patients seeking cancer care.

Does Climate Change Affect Health? Beliefs from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Climate change is currently and will continue impacting human health, however, beliefs about the level of threat vary by demographics, region, and ideology. The purpose of this study was to assess factors related to climate change and health beliefs using cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Data from 5,075 respondents in the 2022 iteration of HINTS was used for this study. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate demographic differences among those who believe climate change will harm health a lot compared to some, a little, or not at all. Generalized ordinal logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between the belief that climate change will harm health and independent variables regarding trust in scientists, health recommendations from experts, and demographic characteristics. Female, Black, Hispanic, and college graduate respondents had higher odds and people in the Southern U.S. those aged 35-49, 50-64, and 75years or older had significantly lower odds of believing climate change would harm their health. Those who trust information about cancer from scientists and those that believe health recommendations from experts conflict or change had higher odds of believing climate change would harm health. Our analysis highlights factors that impact climate change and health beliefs, which may provide targets for tailoring public health messages to address this issue.

Short-term and long-term financial toxicity from breast cancer treatment: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The rising cost of breast cancer treatment has increased patients' financial burden, intensifying an already stressful treatment process. Although researchers increasingly recognize the harmful impact of medical and nonmedical costs associated with cancer treatment, understanding patients' perspectives of financial toxicity is limited. We aimed to explore the topic of financial toxicity through the lived experiences of patients with breast cancer from groups at risk of social and economic marginalization. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 women with breast cancer from four specific groups: Black women, Medicaid enrollees, rural residents, and women age ≤ 40. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed the data using deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: Two overarching themes captured patients' experiences of financial toxicity: short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term stressors included direct medical (e.g., co-pays, premiums), nonmedical (e.g., transportation, lodging), and indirect (e.g., job loss, reduced work hours) costs. Early in their treatments, patients' focus on survival took precedence over financial concerns. However, as the treatment course progressed, fear of consequences from compounding costs of care and financial distress negatively impacted patients' lifestyles and outlooks for the future. CONCLUSION: Programs addressing financial toxicity that look beyond early-phase interventions are needed. Specifically, patients struggling with the accumulation of treatment costs and the resultant stress require ongoing support. Long-term support is especially needed for groups vulnerable to financial instability and social marginalization.

Development of a conceptual model of the capacity for patients to engage in their health care: a group concept mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is seen as a necessary component in achieving the triple aim of improved population health, improved experience of care, and lower per capita health care costs. While there has been a substantial increase in the number of tools and patient-centered initiatives designed to help patients participate in health decisions, there remains a limited understanding of engagement from the perspective of patients and a lack of measures designed to capture the multi-faceted nature of the concept. METHODS: Development of a concept map of patient engagement followed a five-step modified Group Concept Mapping (GCM) methodology of preparation, generation, structuring, analysis and interpretation. We engaged a Project Advisory Committee at each step, along with three rounds of survey collection from clinicians and patients for element generation (272 clinicians, 61 patients), statement sorting (30 clinicians, 15 patients), and ranking and rating of statements (159 clinicians, 67 patients). The survey of three separate samples, as opposed to focus groups of 'experts,' was an intentional decision to gain a broad perspective about the concept of patient engagement. We conducted the structure and analysis steps within the groupwisdom concept mapping software. RESULTS: The final concept map comprised 47 elements organized into 5 clusters: Relationship with Provider, Patient Attitudes and Behaviors, Access, Internal Resources and External Resources. There was considerable agreement in the way elements in each cluster were rated by patients and clinicians. An analysis of the importance of the constitutive elements of patient engagement relative to their addressability highlighted actionable items in the domain of Relationship with Provider, aimed at building trust and enabling patients to ask questions. At the same time, the analysis also identified elements traditionally considered barriers to engagement, like personal access to the internet and the patient's level of digital literacy, as difficult to address by the healthcare system, but also relatively less important for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Through our GCM approach, incorporating perspectives of both patients and clinicians, we identified items that can be used to assess patient engagement efforts by healthcare systems. As a result, our study offers specific insight into areas that can be targeted for intervention by healthcare systems to improve patient engagement.

Implications for Electronic Surveys in Inpatient Settings Based on Patient Survey Response Patterns: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Surveys of hospitalized patients are important for research and learning about unobservable medical issues (eg, mental health, quality of life, and symptoms), but there has been little work examining survey data quality in this population whose capacity to respond to survey items may differ from the general population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine what factors drive response rates, survey drop-offs, and missing data in surveys of hospitalized patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were distributed on an inpatient tablet to patients in a large, midwestern US hospital. Three versions were tested: 1 with 174 items and 2 with 111 items; one 111-item version had missing item reminders that prompted participants when they did not answer items. Response rate, drop-off rate (abandoning survey before completion), and item missingness (skipping items) were examined to investigate data quality. Chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meyer survival curves, and distribution charts were used to compare data quality among survey versions. Response duration was computed for each version. RESULTS: Overall, 2981 patients responded. Response rate did not differ between the 174- and 111-item versions (81.7% vs 83%, P=.53). Drop-off was significantly reduced when the survey was shortened (65.7% vs 20.2% of participants dropped off, P<.001). Approximately one-quarter of participants dropped off by item 120, with over half dropping off by item 158. The percentage of participants with missing data decreased substantially when missing item reminders were added (77.2% vs 31.7% of participants, P<.001). The mean percentage of items with missing data was reduced in the shorter survey (40.7% vs 20.3% of items missing); with missing item reminders, the percentage of items with missing data was further reduced (20.3% vs 11.7% of items missing). Across versions, for the median participant, each item added 24.6 seconds to a survey's duration. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients may have a higher tolerance for longer surveys than the general population, but surveys given to hospitalized patients should have a maximum of 120 items to ensure high rates of completion. Missing item prompts should be used to reduce missing data. Future research should examine generalizability to nonhospitalized individuals.

Patient Priorities, Decisional Comfort, and Satisfaction with Metformin versus Insulin for the Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: We compared patient priorities, decisional comfort, and satisfaction with treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with metformin versus insulin among pregnant individuals with GDM requiring pharmacotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients' perspectives about GDM pharmacotherapy in an integrated prenatal and diabetes care program from October 19, 2022, to August 24, 2023. The exposure was metformin versus insulin as the initial medication decision. Outcomes included standardized measures of patient priorities, decisional comfort, and satisfaction about their medication decision. RESULTS: Among 144 assessed individuals, 60.4% were prescribed metformin and 39.6% were prescribed insulin. Minoritized individuals were more likely to receive metformin compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (34.9 vs. 17.5%; p = 0.03). Individuals who were willing to participate in a GDM pharmacotherapy clinical trial were more likely to receive insulin than those who were unwilling (30.4 vs. 19.5%; p = 0.02). Individuals receiving metformin were more likely to report prioritizing avoiding injections (62.4 vs. 19.3%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-7.31), wanting to take a medication no more than twice daily (56.0 vs. 30.4%; aOR: 3.67; 95% CI: 1.56-8.67), and believing that both medications can equally prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes (70.9 vs. 52.6%; aOR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.19-6.03). Conversely, they were less likely to report prioritizing a medication that crosses the placenta (39.1 vs. 82.5%; aOR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03-0.25) and needing supplemental insulin to achieve glycemic control (21.2 vs. 47.4%; aOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.90). Individuals reported similarly high (mean score > 80%) levels of decisional comfort, personal satisfaction with medication decision-making, and satisfaction about their conversation with their provider about their medication decision with metformin and insulin (p ≥ 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Individuals with GDM requiring pharmacotherapy reported high levels of decision comfort and satisfaction with both metformin and insulin, although they expressed different priorities in medication decision-making. These results can inform future patient-centered GDM treatment strategies. KEY POINTS: · Pregnant individuals with GDM requiring pharmacotherapy expressed a high level of decisional comfort and satisfaction with medication decision making.. · Individuals placed different priorities on deciding to take metformin versus insulin.. · These results can inform interventions aimed at delivering person-centered diabetes care in pregnancy that integrates patient autonomy and knowledge about treatment options..

The role of health care organizations in patient engagement: Mechanisms to support a strong relationship between patients and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) is critical to improving patient experience and outcomes, as well as clinician work life and lowering health care costs, yet health care organizations (HCOs) have limited guidance about how to support PE. The engagement capacity framework considers the context of engagement and examines precursors to engagement, including patients' self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore clinician and patient perspectives related to mechanisms through with the HCOs can facilitate PE through the lens of the engagement capacity framework. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We administered an online open-ended survey to clinicians and patient advisors across the United States, including questions focused on the influences of, barriers to, and skills and tools required for PE. A common theme emerged focusing on the role of HCOs in facilitating engagement. Our analysis examined all responses tagged with the "health care system" code. RESULTS: Over 750 clinicians and patient advisors responded to our survey. Respondents identified offering advice and support for patients to manage their care (self-efficacy), providing tools to facilitate communication (resources), working to encourage connection with patients (willingness), and training for HCO employees in cultural competency and communication skills (capabilities) as important functions of HCOs related to engagement. CONCLUSION: HCOs play an important role in supporting a strong partnership between the patient and clinicians. Our study identifies important mechanisms through which HCOs can fulfill this role. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HCO leadership and administration can help establish the culture of care provided. Policies and initiatives that provide appropriate communication tools and promote culturally competent care can increase engagement.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Teamwork: a Qualitative Study in Two States.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted how primary care physicians (PCPs) and their staff delivered team-based care. OBJECTIVE: To explore PCPs' perspectives about the impact of stay-at-home orders and the increased use of telemedicine on interactions and working relationships with their practice staff during the first 9 months of the pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative research. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included PCPs from family and community medicine, general internal medicine, and pediatrics. APPROACH: One-on-one, semi-structured video interviews with 42 PCPs were conducted between July and December 2020. Physicians were recruited from 30 primary care practices in Massachusetts and Ohio using a combination of purposeful, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview questions focused on work changes and work relationships with other staff members during the pandemic as well as their experiences delivering telemedicine. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. KEY RESULTS: Across respondents and states, the context of the pandemic was reported to have four major impacts on primary care teamwork: (1) staff members' roles were repurposed to support telemedicine; (2) PCPs felt disconnected from staff; (3) PCPs had difficulty communicating with staff; and (4) many PCPs were demoralized during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of in-person contact, and less synchronous communication, negatively impacted PCP-staff teamwork and morale during the pandemic. These challenges further highlight the importance for practice leaders to recognize and attend to clinicians' relational and work-related needs as the pandemic continues.

Examining the Dimensionality of Trust in the Inpatient Setting: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trust in healthcare providers is associated with important outcomes, but has primarily been assessed in the outpatient setting. It is largely unknown how hospitalized patients conceptualize trust in their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the dimensionality of a measure of trust in the inpatient setting. DESIGN: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients (N = 1756; 76% response rate) across six hospitals in the midwestern USA. The sample was randomly split such that approximately one half was used in the EFA, and the other half in the CFA. MAIN MEASURES: The Trust in Physician Scale, adapted for inpatient care. KEY RESULTS: Based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion and parallel analysis, EFAs were inconclusive, indicating that trust may be comprised of either one or two factors in this sample. In follow-up CFAs, a 2-factor model fit best based on a chi-squared difference test (Δχ2 = 151.48(1), p < .001) and a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) difference test (CFI difference = .03). The overall fit for the 2-factor CFA model was good (χ2 = 293.56, df = 43, p < .01; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .081 [90% confidence interval = .072-.090]; TLI = .93; SRMR = .04). Items loaded onto two factors related to cognitive (i.e., whether patients view providers as competent) and affective (i.e., whether patients view that providers care for them) dimensions of trust. CONCLUSIONS: While measures of trust in the outpatient setting have been validated as unidimensional, in the inpatient setting, trust appears to be composed of two factors: cognitive and affective trust. This provides initial evidence that inpatient providers may need to work to ensure patients see them as both competent and caring in order to gain their trust.

COVID-19 Vaccinations in EMS Professionals: Prevalence and Predictors.

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Geographic Location Impacts Patient Portal Use via Desktop and Mobile Devices.

Disparities in patient portal use are impacted by individuals' access to technology and the internet as well as their skills and health behaviors. An individual's geographic location may impact these factors as well as contribute to their decision to use a portal, their choice of device to access the portal, and their use of portal functions. This study evaluated patient portal use by geographic location according to three comparators: proximity to the medical center offering the portal, urban/rural classification, and degree of digital distress. Patients residing farther from the medical center, in rural areas, or in areas of higher digital distress were less likely to be active portal users. Patients in areas of higher digital distress were more likely to use the mobile portal application instead of the desktop portal website alone. Users of the mobile portal application used portal functions more frequently, and being a mobile user had a greater impact on the use of some portal functions by patients residing in areas of higher digital distress. Mobile patient portal applications have the potential to increase portal use, but work is needed to ensure equitable internet access, to promote mobile patient portal applications, and to cultivate individuals' skills to use portals.

Examining Patients' Capacity to Use Patient Portals: Insights for Telehealth.

BACKGROUND: The increase in telehealth in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlights the need to understand patients' capacity to utilize this care modality. Patient portals are a tool whose use requires similar resources and skills as those required for telehealth. Patients' capacity to use patient portals may therefore provide insight regarding patients' readiness and capacity to use telehealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine factors related to patients' capacity to use a patient portal and test the impact of these factors on patients' portal use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Using data from a large-scale pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient portal use, 1081 hospitalized patients responded to survey items that were then mapped onto the 4 dimensions of the Engagement Capacity Framework: self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities. MEASURES: The outcome variable was frequency of outpatient portal use. We evaluated associations between Engagement Capacity Framework dimensions and patient portal use, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients with fewer resources, fewer capabilities, lower willingness, and lower overall capacity to use patient portals used the portal less; in contrast, those with lower perceived self-efficacy used the portal more. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight differences in patients' capacity to use patient portals, which provide an initial understanding of factors that may influence the use of telehealth and offer important guidance in efforts to support patients' telehealth use. Offering patients training tailored to the use of telehealth tools may be particularly beneficial.

Identifying Opportunities to Strengthen the Public Health Informatics Infrastructure: Exploring Hospitals' Challenges with Data Exchange.

Policy Points Even though most hospitals have the technological ability to exchange data with public health agencies, the majority continue to experience challenges. Most challenges are attributable to the general resources of public health agencies, although workforce limitations, technology issues such as a lack of data standards, and policy uncertainty around reporting requirements also remain prominent issues. Ongoing funding to support the adoption of technology and strengthen the development of the health informatics workforce, combined with revising the promotion of the interoperability scoring approach, will likely help improve the exchange of electronic data between hospitals and public health agencies. CONTEXT: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted significant barriers in the exchange of essential information between hospitals and local public health agencies. Thus it remains important to clarify the specific issues that hospitals may face in reporting to public health agencies to inform focused approaches to improve the information exchange for the current pandemic as well as ongoing public health activities and population health management. METHODS: This study uses cross-sectional data of acute-care, nonfederal hospitals from the 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Information Technology supplement. Guided by the technology-organization-environment framework, we coded the responses to a question regarding the challenges that hospitals face in submitting data to public health agencies by using content analysis according to the type of challenge (i.e., technology, organization, or environment), responsible entity (i.e., hospital, public health agency, vendor, multiple), and the specific issue described. We used multivariable logistic and multinomial regression to identify characteristics of hospitals associated with experiencing the types of challenges. FINDINGS: Our findings show that of the 2,794 hospitals in our analysis, 1,696 (61%) reported experiencing at least one challenge in reporting health data to a public health agency. Organizational issues were the most frequently reported type of challenge, noted by 1,455 hospitals. The most common specific issue, reported by 1,117 hospitals, was the general resources of public health agencies. An advanced EHR system and participation in a health information exchange both decreased the likelihood of not reporting experiencing a challenge and increased the likelihood of reporting an organizational challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform policy recommendations such as improving data standards, increasing funding for public health agencies to improve their technological capabilities, offering workforce training programs, and increasing clarity of policy specifications and reporting. These approaches can improve the exchange of information between hospitals and public health agencies.

Physician Perspectives about Telemedicine: Considering the Usability of Telemedicine in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Use of telemedicine in pediatric gastroenterology has increased dramatically in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The goal of this study was to systematically assess the usability of telemedicine in the field of pediatric gastroenterology. METHODS: The previously validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire was distributed to physician pediatric gastroenterologist members of North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition. Physician demographic and practice characteristics were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive, linear mixed-effect, and ordinary least squares regression methods. RESULTS: One hundred sixty pediatric gastroenterologists completed the survey. The majority were from academic practice (77%) with experience ranging from trainee (11%) to over 20 years of clinical practice (34%). Most (82%) had no experience with telemedicine before the pandemic. The average usability score (scale 1-5) was 3.87 (σ = 0.67) with the highest domain in the usefulness of telemedicine (µâ€Š= 4.29, σ = 0.69) and physician satisfaction (µâ€Š= 4.13, σ = 0.79) and the lowest domain in reliability (µâ€Š= 3.02, σ = 0.87). When comparing trainees to attending physicians, trainees' responses were almost one point lower on satisfaction with telemedicine (trainee effect = -0.97, Bonferroni adjusted 95% confidence interval = -1.71 to -0.23). CONCLUSION: Pediatric gastroenterologists who responded to the survey reported that the technology for telemedicine was usable, but trainees indicated lower levels of satisfaction when compared to attending physicians. Future study is needed to better understand user needs and the impacts of telemedicine on providers with different levels are experience to inform efforts to promote implementation and use of telemedicine beyond the pandemic.

Telehealth challenges during COVID-19 as reported by primary healthcare physicians in Quebec and Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven primary healthcare (PHC) providers to use telehealth as an alternative to traditional face-to-face consultations. Providing telehealth that meets the needs of patients in a pandemic has presented many challenges for PHC providers. The aim of this study was to describe the positive and negative implications of using telehealth in one Canadian (Quebec) and one American (Massachusetts) PHC setting during the COVID-19 pandemic as reported by physicians. METHODS: We conducted 42 individual semi-structured video interviews with physicians in Quebec (N = 20) and Massachusetts (N = 22) in 2020. Topics covered included their practice history, changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the advantages and challenges of telehealth. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis was carried out to identify implications of delivering care via telehealth. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified, each with positive and negative implications: 1) access for patients; 2) efficiency of care delivery; 3) professional impacts; and 4) relational dimensions of care. For patients' access, positive implications referred to increased availability of services; negative implications involved barriers due to difficulties with access to and use of technologies. Positive implications for efficiency were related to improved follow-up care; negative implications involved difficulties in diagnosing in the absence of direct physical examination and non-verbal cues. For professional impacts, positive implications were related to flexibility (teleworking, more availability for patients) and reimbursement, while negative implications were related to technological limitations experienced by both patients and practitioners. For relational dimensions, positive implications included improved communication, as patients were more at ease at home, and the possibility of gathering information from what could be seen of the patient's environment; negative implications were related to concerns around maintaining the therapeutic relationship and changes in patients' engagement and expectations. CONCLUSION: Ensuring that health services provision meets patients' needs at all times calls for flexibility in care delivery modalities, role shifting to adapt to virtual care, sustained relationships with patients, and interprofessional collaboration. To succeed, these efforts require guidelines and training, as well as careful attention to technological barriers and interpersonal relationship needs.

Differential Effects of Outpatient Portal User Status on Inpatient Portal Use: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The decision to use patient portals can be influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' perceptions of the tool, which are based on both their personal skills and experiences. Prior experience with one type of portal may make individuals more comfortable with using newer portal technologies. Experienced outpatient portal users in particular may have confidence in their ability to use inpatient portals that have similar functionality. In practice, the use of both outpatient and inpatient portal technologies can provide patients with continuity of access to their health information across care settings, but the influence of one type of portal use on the use of other portals has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand how patients' use of an inpatient portal is influenced by outpatient portal use. METHODS: This study included patients from an academic medical center who were provided access to an inpatient portal during their hospital stays between 2016 and 2018 (N=1571). We analyzed inpatient portal log files to investigate how inpatient portal use varied by using 3 categories of outpatient portal users: prior users, new users, and nonusers. RESULTS: Compared with prior users (695/1571, 44.24%) of an outpatient portal, new users (214/1571, 13.62%) had higher use of a select set of inpatient portal functions (messaging function: incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.06-1.67; function that provides access to the outpatient portal through the inpatient portal: IRR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.58). Nonusers (662/1571, 42.14%), compared with prior users, had lower overall inpatient portal use (all active functions: IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.78) and lower use of specific functions, which included the function to review vitals and laboratory results (IRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.73) and the function to access the outpatient portal (IRR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.62). In comparison with prior users, nonusers also had lower odds of being comprehensive users (defined as using 8 or more unique portal functions; odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.73) or composite users (defined as comprehensive users who initiated a 75th or greater percentile of portal sessions) of the inpatient portal (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' use of an inpatient portal during their hospital stay appeared to be influenced by a combination of factors, including prior outpatient portal use. For new users, hospitalization itself, a major event that can motivate behavioral changes, may have influenced portal use. In contrast, nonusers might have lower self-efficacy in their ability to use technology to manage their health, contributing to their lower portal use. Understanding the relationship between the use of outpatient and inpatient portals can help direct targeted implementation strategies that encourage individuals to use these tools to better manage their health across care settings.

Metrics for Outpatient Portal Use Based on Log File Analysis: Algorithm Development.

BACKGROUND: Web-based outpatient portals help patients engage in the management of their health by allowing them to access their medical information, schedule appointments, track their medications, and communicate with their physicians and care team members. Initial studies have shown that portal adoption positively affects health outcomes; however, early studies typically relied on survey data. Using data from health portal applications, we conducted systematic assessments of patients' use of an outpatient portal to examine how patients engage with the tool. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to document the functionality of an outpatient portal in the context of outpatient care by mining portal usage data and to provide insights into how patients use this tool. METHODS: Using audit log files from the outpatient portal associated with the electronic health record system implemented at a large multihospital academic medical center, we investigated the behavioral traces of a study population of 2607 patients who used the portal between July 2015 and February 2019. Patient portal use was defined as having an active account and having accessed any portal function more than once during the study time frame. RESULTS: Through our analysis of audit log file data of the number and type of user interactions, we developed a taxonomy of functions and actions and computed analytic metrics, including frequency and comprehensiveness of use. We additionally documented the computational steps required to diagnose artifactual data and arrive at valid usage metrics. Of the 2607 patients in our sample, 2511 were active users of the patients portal where the median number of sessions was 94 (IQR 207). Function use was comprehensive at the patient level, while each session was instead limited to the use of one specific function. Only 17.45% (78,787/451,762) of the sessions were linked to activities involving more than one portal function. CONCLUSIONS: In discussing the full methodological choices made in our analysis, we hope to promote the replicability of our study at other institutions and contribute to the establishment of best practices that can facilitate the adoption of behavioral metrics that enable the measurement of patient engagement based on the outpatient portal use.

Helping Patients Be Better Patients: A Qualitative Study of Perceptions About Inpatient Portal Use.

Introduction: As more hospitals introduce inpatient portals, it is increasingly important to understand their impact on patient experience and the care process. We conducted this study to learn from patients and care team members about their experience with an inpatient portal. Methods: We interviewed 120 patients and 433 care team members across a seven-hospital academic medical center that offers an inpatient portal to hospitalized patients. Interviewees were asked about their use of the inpatient portal and its impact on patient experience. Recorded interviews were transcribed and rigorously analyzed using both inductive and deductive methods. Results: We found that the inpatient portal was perceived to help patients be "better patients" by improving their ability to be informed about their health and by enabling them to be more involved in the care process. Care team members suggested portal use could be improved by addressing challenges with tablet administration, use of the patient education feature, and the functionality of the scheduling feature. Conclusions: Across interviewees, we found that inpatient portals were perceived to improve the hospital experience and increase empowerment for patients by offering information about care in a manner that allowed patients to join their care teams as active, participating members.

Exploring the Digital Divide: Age and Race Disparities in Use of an Inpatient Portal.

Background: Age and race disparities in the use of new technologies-the digital divide-may be limiting the potential of patient-facing health information technology to improve health and health care. Objective: To investigate whether disparities exist in the use of patient portals designed specifically for the inpatient environment. Methods: Patients admitted to the six hospitals affiliated with a large, Midwestern academic medical center from July 2017 to July 2018 were provided with access to a tablet equipped with an inpatient portal and recruited to participate in the study (n = 842). Demographic characteristics of study enrollees were obtained from patients' electronic health records and surveys given to patients during their hospital stay. Log files from the inpatient portal were used to create a global measure of use and calculate use rates for specific portal features.Results: We found both age and race disparities in use of the inpatient portal. Patients aged 60-69 (45.3% difference, p < 0.001) and those over age 70 (36.7% difference, p = 0.04) used the inpatient portal less than patients aged 18-29. In addition, African American patients used the portal less than White patients (40.4% difference, p = 0.004).Discussion: These findings suggest that the availability of the technology alone may be insufficient to overcome barriers to use and that additional intervention may be needed to close the digital divide. Conclusions: We identified lower use of the inpatient portal among African American and older patients, relative to White and younger patients, respectively.