A qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators of telemedicine volunteerism during the COVID-19 pandemic in India.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic further propelled the recent growth of telemedicine in low-resource countries, with new models of telemedicine emerging, including volunteer-based telemedicine networks. By leveraging existing infrastructure and resources to allocate health personnel more efficiently, these volunteer networks eased some of the pandemic burden placed on health systems. However, there is insufficient understanding of volunteer-based telemedicine models, especially on the human resources engagement on such networks. This study aims to understand the motivations and barriers to health practitioner engagement on a volunteer telemedicine network during COVID-19, and the mechanisms that can potentially sustain volunteer engagement to address healthcare demands beyond the pandemic. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with health practitioners volunteering on an Indian, multi-state telemedicine network during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis methods. RESULTS: Most practitioners reported being motivated to volunteer by a sense of duty to serve during the pandemic. Practitioners suggested organizational-level measures to make the process more efficient and facilitate a more rewarding provider-patient interaction. These included screening calls, gathering patient information prior to consultations, and allowing for follow-up calls with patients to close the loop on consultations. Many practitioners stated that non-financial incentives are enough to maintain volunteer engagement. However, practitioners expressed mixed feelings about financial incentives. Some stated that financial incentives are needed to maintain long-term provider engagement, while others stated that financial incentives would devalue the volunteer experience. Most practitioners highlighted that telemedicine could increase access to healthcare, especially to the rural and underserved, even after the pandemic. Practitioners also expressed an interest in continuing to volunteer with the network if the need arose again. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that practitioners are highly intrinsically motivated to volunteer during large healthcare emergencies and beyond to address the healthcare needs of the underserved. Following the recommendations presented in the study, telemedicine networks can more successfully engage and maintain volunteer practitioners. Volunteer-based telemedicine networks have the potential to bridge shortages of health personnel in resource-constrained settings both in times of crises and beyond.

Postacute Expenditures Among Patients Discharged Home After Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: The COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The COMPASS (COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services) pragmatic trial cluster-randomized 40 hospitals in North Carolina to the COMPASS transitional care (TC) postacute care intervention or usual care. We estimated the difference in healthcare expenditures postdischarge for patients enrolled in the COMPASS-TC model of care compared with usual care. METHODS: We linked data for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack enrolled in the COMPASS trial with administrative claims from Medicare fee-for-service (n = 2262), Medicaid (n = 341), and a large private insurer (n = 234). The primary outcome was 90-day total expenditures, analyzed separately by payer. Secondary outcomes were total expenditures 30- and 365-days postdischarge and, among Medicare beneficiaries, expenditures by point of service. In addition to intent-to-treat analysis, we conducted a per-protocol analysis to compare Medicare patients who received the intervention with those who did not, using randomization status as an instrumental variable. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in total 90-day postacute expenditures between intervention and usual care; the results were consistent across payers. Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the COMPASS intervention arm had higher 90-day hospital readmission expenditures ($682, 95% CI $60-$1305), 30-day emergency department expenditures ($132, 95% CI $13-$252), and 30-day ambulatory care expenditures ($67, 95% CI $38-$96) compared with usual care. The per-protocol analysis did not yield a significant difference in 90-day postacute care expenditures for Medicare COMPASS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The COMPASS-TC model did not significantly change patients' total healthcare expenditures for up to 1 year postdischarge.