The Family and Pregnancy Pop-Up Village: Developing a one-stop shop of services to reduce pregnancy care-related inequities in San Francisco.

INTRODUCTION: Centering affected individuals and forming equitable institutional-community partnerships are necessary to meaningfully transform care delivery systems. We describe our use of the PRECEDE-PROCEED framework to design, plan, and implement a novel care delivery system to address perinatal inequities in San Francisco. METHODS: Community engagement (PRECEDE phases 1-2) informed the "Pregnancy Village" prototype, which would unite key organizations to deliver valuable services alongside one another, as a recurring "one-stop-shop" community-based event, delivered in an uplifting, celebratory, and healing environment. Semi-structured interviews with key partners identified participation facilitators and barriers (PRECEDE phases 3-4) and findings informed our implementation roadmap. We measured feasibility through the number of events successfully produced and attended, and organizational engagement through meeting attendance and surveys. RESULTS: The goals of Pregnancy Village resonated with key partners. Most organizations identified resource constraints and other participation barriers; all committed to the requested 12-month pilot. During its first year, 10 pilot events were held with consistent organizational participation and high provider engagement. CONCLUSION: Through deep engagement and equitable partnerships between community and institutional stakeholders, novel systems of care delivery can be implemented to better meet comprehensive community needs.

System-Level Factors Associated With Telephone and Video Visit Use: Survey of Safety-Net Clinicians During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted safety-net health care systems to rapidly implement telemedicine services with little prior experience, causing disparities in access to virtual visits. While much attention has been given to patient barriers, less is known regarding system-level factors influencing telephone versus video-visit adoption. As telemedicine remains a preferred service for patients and providers, and reimbursement parity will not continue for audio visits, health systems must evaluate how to support higher-quality video visit access. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess health system-level factors and their impact on telephone and video visit adoption to inform sustainability of telemedicine for ambulatory safety-net sites. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among ambulatory care clinicians at a hospital-linked ambulatory clinic network serving a diverse, publicly insured patient population between May 28 and July 14, 2020. We conducted bivariate analyses assessing health care system-level factors associated with (1) high telephone adoption (4 or more visits on average per session); and (2) video visit adoption (at least 1 video visit on average per session). RESULTS: We collected 311 responses from 643 eligible clinicians, yielding a response rate of 48.4%. Clinician respondents (N=311) included 34.7% (n=108) primary or urgent care, 35.1% (n=109) medical, and 7.4% (n=23) surgical specialties. Our sample included 178 (57.2%) high telephone adopters and 81 (26.05%) video adopters. Among high telephone adopters, 72.2% utilized personal devices for telemedicine (vs 59.0% of low telephone adopters, P=.04). Video nonadopters requested more training in technical aspects than adopters (49.6% vs 27.2%, P<.001). Primary or urgent care had the highest proportion of high telephone adoption (84.3%, compared to 50.4% of medical and 37.5% of surgical specialties, P<.001). Medical specialties had the highest proportion of video adoption (39.1%, compared to 14.8% of primary care and 12.5% of surgical specialties, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Personal device access and department specialty were major factors associated with high telephone and video visit adoption among safety-net clinicians. Desire for training was associated with lower video visit use. Secure device access, clinician technical trainings, and department-wide assessments are priorities for safety-net systems implementing telemedicine.

Satisfaction can co-exist with hesitation: qualitative analysis of acceptability of telemedicine among multi-lingual patients in a safety-net healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented expansion of outpatient telemedicine in the United States in all types of health systems, including safety-net health systems. These systems generally serve low-income, racially/ethnically/linguistically diverse patients, many of whom face barriers to digital health access. These patients' perspectives are vital to inform ongoing, equitable implementation efforts. METHODS: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews exploring a theoretical framework of technology acceptability were conducted from March through July 2020. Participants had preferred languages of English, Spanish, or Cantonese and were recruited from three clinics (general medicine, obstetrics, and pulmonary) within the San Francisco Health Network. Both deductive and inductive coding were performed. In a secondary analysis, qualitative data were merged with survey data to relate perspectives to demographic factors and technology access/use. RESULTS: Participants were diverse with respect to language (52% non-English-speaking), age (range 23-71), race/ethnicity (24% Asian, 20% Black, 44% Hispanic/Latinx, 12% White), & smartphone use (80% daily, 20% weekly or less). All but 2 had a recent telemedicine visit (83% telephone). Qualitative results revealed that most participants felt telemedicine visits fulfilled their medical needs, were convenient, and were satisfied with their telemedicine care. However, most still preferred in-person visits, expressing concern that tele-visits relied on patients' abilities to access telemedicine, as well as monitor and manage their own health without in-person physical evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: High satisfaction with telemedicine can co-exist with patient-expressed hesitations surrounding the perceived effectiveness, self-efficacy, and digital access barriers associated with a new model of care. More research is needed to guide how healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions and communicate about visit modalities to support high-quality care that responds to patients' needs and circumstances.

Using human centered design to identify opportunities for reducing inequities in perinatal care.

BACKGROUND: Extreme disparities in access, experience, and outcomes highlight the need to transform how pregnancy care is designed and delivered in the United States, especially for low-income individuals and people of color. METHODS: We used human-centered design (HCD) to understand the challenges facing Medicaid-insured pregnant people and design interventions to address these challenges. The HCD method has three phases: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation. This study focused on the first and second. In the Inspiration phase we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of stakeholders who had either received or participated in the care of Medicaid-insured pregnant people within our community, with a specific emphasis on representation from marginalized communities. Using a general inductive approach to thematic analysis, we identified themes, which were then framed into design opportunities. In the Ideation phase, we conducted structured brainstorming sessions to generate potential prototypes of solutions, which were tested and iterated upon through a series of community events and engagement with a diverse community advisory group. RESULTS: We engaged a total of 171 stakeholders across both phases of the HCD methodology. In the Inspiration phase, interviews with 23 community members and an eight-person focus group revealed seven insights centered around two main themes: (1) racism and discrimination create major barriers to access, experience, and the ability to deliver high-value pregnancy care; (2) pregnancy care is overmedicalized and does not treat the pregnant person as an equal and informed partner. In the Ideation phase, 162 ideas were produced and translated into eight solution prototypes. Community scoring and feedback events with 140 stakeholders led to the progressive refinement and selection of three final prototypes: (1) implementing telemedicine (video visits) within the safety-net system, (2) integrating community-based peer support workers into healthcare teams, and (3) delivering co-located pregnancy-related care and services into high-need neighborhoods as a one-stop shop. CONCLUSIONS: Using HCD methodology and a collaborative community-health system approach, we identified gaps, opportunities, and solutions to address perinatal care inequities within our urban community. Given the urgent need for implementable and effective solutions, the design process was particularly well-suited because it focuses on understanding and centering the needs and values of stakeholders, is multi-disciplinary through all phases, and results in prototyping and iteration of real-world solutions.

Ensuring Equitable Implementation of Telemedicine in Perinatal Care.

The use of telemedicine in U.S. perinatal care has drastically increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and will likely continue given the national focus on high-value, patient-centered care. If implemented in an equitable manner, telemedicine has the potential to reduce disparities in care access and related outcomes that stem from systemic racism, implicit biases and other forms of discrimination within our health care system. In this commentary, we address implementation factors that should be considered to ensure that disparities are not widened as telemedicine becomes more integrated into care delivery.

Clinician experience with telemedicine at a safety-net hospital network during COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted unprecedented expansion of telemedicine services. We sought to describe clinician experiences providing telemedicine to publicly-insured, low-income patients during COVID-19. Methods: Online survey of ambulatory clinicians in an urban safety-net hospital system, conducted May 28 2020-July 14 2020. Results: Among 311 participants (response rate 48.3%), 34.7% (N=108/311) practiced in primary/urgent care, 37.0% (N=115/311) medical specialty and 7.7% (N=24/311) surgical clinics. 87.8% (273/311) had conducted telephone visits, 26% (81/311) video. Participants reported observing both technical and non-technical patient barriers. Clinicians reported concerns about the diagnostic safety of telephone (58.9%, 129/219) vs video (35.3%, 24/68). However, clinician comfort with telemedicine was high (89.3% (216/242) for telephone, 91.0% (61/67) for video), with many clinicians (220/239 or 92.1% telephone, 60/66 or 90.9% video) planning to continue telemedicine after COVID-19. Conclusions: Clinicians in a safety-net healthcare system report high comfort with and intention to continue telemedicine after the pandemic, despite patient challenges and safety concerns.

Both patients and maternity care providers can benefit from payment reform: four steps to prepare.

Many Medicaid programs and private health plans are implementing new models of maternity care reimbursement, and clinicians face mounting pressure to demonstrate high-quality care at a lower cost. Clinicians will be better prepared to meet these challenges with a fuller understanding of new payment models and the opportunities they present. We describe the structure of maternity care episode payments and recommend 4 ways that clinicians can prepare for success as value-based payment models are implemented: identify opportunities to improve outcomes and experience, measure quality, reduce waste, and work in teams across settings.