Identification of Hospitalized Patients Who May Benefit from a Serious Illness Conversation Using the Readmission Risk Score Combined with the Surprise Question.

BACKGROUND: Determining which patients benefit from a serious illness conversation (SIC) is challenging. The authors sought to determine whether Epic's Risk of Readmission Score (RRS), could be combined with a simple, validated, one-question mortality prognostic screen (the surprise question: Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next 12 months?) to identify hospitalized patients with SIC needs. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the authors randomly selected encounters for patients ≥ 18 years of age to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 who had an RRS > 28%. Two adjudicators independently performed chart reviews for each encounter to answer the surprise question to create two distinct prognostic groups (yes vs. no). Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistically significant differences in standardized documentation of SICs between groups. RESULTS: Out of 2,879 encounters, 202 patient encounters were randomly selected. Adjudicators answered "no" to the surprise question for 156 (77.2%) patients. Patients for whom adjudicators answered "no" were generally older with higher comorbidity and more often had standardized documentation of a SIC (14 [9.0%] vs. 0.[0.0%], p = 0.042) compared to patients for whom adjudicators answered "yes." CONCLUSION: Approximately three quarters of patients with a high RRS were predicted to have a lifespan of less than a year. Although these patients were significantly more likely to have a SIC, rates of SICs were extremely low. Combining available electronic health record (EHR) data with a simple one-question screening tool may help identify hospitalized patients who require a SIC in quality improvement initiatives.

Assessing Disparities in Video-Telehealth Use and eHealth Literacy Among Hospitalized Patients: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare coverage for audio-only telehealth is slated to end this year after the public health emergency concludes. When the time comes, many patients may be unable to make the transition from audio-only to video telehealth due to digital inexperience. This study explores the second digital divide within video telehealth use, which is primarily characterized by skills and capabilities rather than access, by measuring eHealth literacy (eHL) and video capabilities in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate video capabilities, eHealth literacy, and engagement with video telehealth among hospitalized patients. METHODS: The study design is a cross-sectional observational study of adult inpatients at the University of Chicago Medical Center. We assessed self-reported rates of audio versus video telehealth usage as well as the participants' self-reported willingness to use video telehealth for future health care visits. We used a multivariable binary logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for being unwilling to use video telehealth, adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, educational level, eHL literacy scale (eHEALS), health literacy (brief health literacy screen), technology access, internet access, and video capability. RESULTS: Of the 297 enrolled participants, median age was 58 years, most (n=185, 62%) identified as Black, half (n=149, 50%) were female, one-quarter (n=66, 22%) lacked home internet access, and one-third (n=102, 34%) had inadequate eHL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low eHL reported greater participation in audio-only telehealth over video telehealth, of which the former may lose its flexible pandemic reimbursement policy. This may widen the existing health disparities as older adults and patients with low eHL face challenges in accessing video telehealth services. Low eHL is associated with lack of web-based skills, lower rates of video telehealth usage, and lower willingness to use video technology. The study results raise the question of how to improve video capability among patients who, despite having access to smartphones and laptops, face challenges in using telehealth optimally.

The Relationship Between Insufficient Vision and Technology Access and Use Among Hospitalized Adults at an Urban Academic Hospital: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of sufficient vision in self-management is salient with respect to the growing prevalence of eHealth-based interventions for chronic diseases. However, the relationship between insufficient vision and self-management has been understudied. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess differences in access to and use of technology among adults with and without insufficient vision at an academic urban hospital. METHODS: This is an observational study of hospitalized adult general medicine patients that is part of a larger quality improvement study called the hospitalist study. The hospitalist study provided demographic and health literacy data (Brief Health Literacy Screen). Our substudy included several measures. Validated surveys assessed technology access and use, and included benchmarked questions from the National Pew Survey to determine access to, willingness to use, and self-described ability to use technology at home, particularly for self-management, and eHealth-specific questions assessing future willingness to access eHealth post discharge. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was used to assess eHealth literacy. Visual acuity was assessed using the Snellen pocket eye chart with low vision defined as visual acuity ≤20/50 in at least one eye. Descriptive statistics, bivariate chi-square analyses, and multivariate logistic regressions (adjusted for age, race, gender, education level, and eHealth literacy) were performed using Stata. RESULTS: A total of 59 participants completed our substudy. The mean age was 54 (SD 16.4) years. Demographic data from the hospitalist study was missing for several participants. Among those who responded, most identified as Black (n=34, 79%) and female (n=26, 57%), and most reported at least some college education (n=30, 67%). Most participants owned technology devices (n=57, 97%) and had previously used the internet (n=52, 86%), with no significant differences between those with insufficient and sufficient vision (n=34 vs n=25). Though there was a 2x effect size for laptop ownership, with those with sufficient vision more likely to own a laptop, those with insufficient vision versus sufficient vision were less likely to report an ability to perform online tasks without assistance, including using a search engine (n=22, 65% vs n=23, 92%; P=.02), opening an attachment (n=17, 50% vs n=22, 88%; P=.002), and using an online video (n=20, 59% vs n=22, 88%; P=.01). In multivariate analysis, the ability to independently open an online attachment did not remain statistically significant (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Technology device ownership and internet use rates are high in this population, yet participants with insufficient vision (vs sufficient vision) reported a reduced ability to independently perform online tasks. To ensure the effective use of eHealth technologies by at-risk populations, the relationship between vision and technology use needs to be further studied.

eHealth Literacy and Patient Portal Use and Attitudes: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, patient portals have become more widely used tools of patient care delivery. However, not all individuals have equivalent access or ability to use patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationships between eHealth literacy (eHL) and patient portal awareness, use, and attitudes among hospitalized patients. METHODS: Inpatients completed patient portal surveys; eHL was assessed (eHealth Literacy Scale). Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, self-reported race, gender, and educational attainment were completed with significance at P<.006 (Bonferroni correction). RESULTS: Among 274 participants, most identified as Black (n=166, 61%) and female (n=140, 51%), mean age was 56.5 (SD 16.7) years, and 178 (65%) reported some college or higher educational attainment. One-quarter (n=79, 28%) had low eHL (mean 27, SD 9.5), which was associated with lower odds of portal access awareness (odds ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.23; P<.001), having ever used portals (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.36; P<.001), less perceived usefulness of portals (odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.38; P=.001), and lower likelihood of planning to use portals in the coming years (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.06-0.25; P<.001). As time through the COVID-19 pandemic passed, there was a trend toward increased perceived usefulness of patient portals (53% vs 62%, P=.08), but average eHL did not increase through time (P=.81). CONCLUSIONS: Low eHL was associated with less awareness, use, and perceived usefulness of portals. Perceived usefulness of portals likely increased through the COVID-19 pandemic, but patients' eHL did not. Interventions tailored for patients with low eHL could ensure greater equity in health care delivery through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Wikipedia: A Medical Student Educational Project to Edit Wikipedia in Preparation for Practicing Evidence-Based Pain Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Wikipedia is commonly used to acquire information about various medical conditions such as chronic pain. Ideally, better online pain management content could reduce the burden of opioid use disorders. Our goal was to improve the quality of the content available on Wikipedia to make it more accurate and applicable to medical students and the general public while training medical students to practice evidence-based medicine and critically assess their sources of information. METHODS: An elective class in Neuroscience, Pain, and Opioids composed of 10 medical students met biweekly to discuss landmark and practice-changing research articles in the fields of acute pain, chronic pain, and opioid management. The professor chose Wikipedia articles relevant to this course. Three independent viewers analyzed the quality of citations, anecdotal medical content, and content value for both patients and medical professionals. As part of their coursework, students then edited the Wikipedia articles. RESULTS: Although some of the Wikipedia pain topic content (6.7% ± 2.0) was anecdotal, financially biased, or inconsistent with Western Medical Practice content, overall articles included primarily high-quality citations (85.6% ± 3.1). On a 0-5 Likert scale, students felt content would be moderately helpful for both medical students/professionals (3.4 ± 0.2) and laypersons (3.5 ± 0.2). Editing and adding citations was feasible, but novel material was often reverted. CONCLUSION: A significant amount of pain medicine content was relevant and amenable to student editing. Therefore, future use of this tactic could provide a unique opportunity to integrate evidence-based medicine into the medical curriculum and have a direct impact on the widely available medical information. Future refinement in the editorial process may also further improve online information.

Evaluating the Need to Address Digital Literacy Among Hospitalized Patients: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Technology is a potentially powerful tool to assist patients with transitions of care during and after hospitalization. Patients with low health literacy who are predisposed to poor health outcomes are particularly poised to benefit from such interventions. However, this population may lack the ability to effectively engage with technology. Although prior research studied the role of health literacy in technology access/use among outpatients, hospitalized patient populations have not been investigated in this context. Further, with the rapid uptake of technology, access may no longer be pertinent, and differences in technological capabilities may drive the current digital divide. Thus, characterizing the digital literacy of hospitalized patients across health literacy levels is paramount. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the relationship between health literacy level and technological access, use, and capability among hospitalized patients. METHODS: Adult inpatients completed a technology survey that asked about technology access/use and online capabilities as part of an ongoing quality of care study. Participants' health literacy level was assessed utilizing the 3-question Brief Health Literacy Screen. Descriptive statistics, bivariate chi-squared analyses, and multivariate logistic regression analyses (adjusting for age, race, gender, and education level) were performed. Using Bonferroni correction for the 18 tests, the threshold P value for significance was <.003. RESULTS: Among 502 enrolled participants, the mean age was 51 years, 71.3% (358/502) were African American, half (265/502, 52.8%) were female, and half (253/502, 50.4%) had at least some college education. Over one-third (191/502, 38.0%) of participants had low health literacy. The majority of participants owned devices (owned a smartphone: 116/173, 67.1% low health literacy versus 235/300, 78.3% adequate health literacy, P=.007) and had used the Internet previously (143/189, 75.7% low health literacy versus 281/309, 90.9% adequate health literacy, P<.001). Participants with low health literacy were more likely to report needing help performing online tasks (133/189, 70.4% low health literacy versus 135/303, 44.6% adequate health literacy, P<.001). In the multivariate analysis, when adjusting for age, race, gender, and education level, we found that low health literacy was not significantly associated with a lower likelihood of owning smartphones (OR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.4; P=.52) or using the internet ever (OR: 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; P=.02). However, low health literacy remained significantly associated with a higher likelihood of needing help performing any online task (OR: 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.6; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants with low health literacy had access to technological devices and had used the internet previously, but they were unable to perform online tasks without assistance. The barriers patients face in using online health information and other health information technology may be more related to online capabilities rather than to technology access. When designing and implementing technological tools for hospitalized patients, it is important to ensure that patients across digital literacy levels can both understand and use them.