Usability And Feasibility of an in-Home Remote Exam Device in Children with Medical Complexity During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Children with medical complexity (CMC) account for high health care utilization. Telemedicine holds significant potential in CMC, as it allows a provider to engage with CMC in their home environment and can alleviate both financial and transportation burdens. Remote exam devices that enable the performance of a physical exam could expand the ability of providers to clinically assess CMC during a telemedicine visit. In this pilot study, our goal was to develop a process for integrating an in-home remote exam device into a complex care clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate the usability and feasibility of this device. Methods: The remote exam device was distributed to caregivers of CMC cared for at a complex care outpatient center. Using deliberate practice framework, our onboarding process provided opportunities for caregivers and providers to learn how to utilize the device. Surveys examining usability and feasibility were administered to both caregivers and providers after each telemedicine encounter. Results: A total of 43 caregivers participated in the onboarding process, which included a total of 83 practice visits. The remote exam device was rated as having excellent usability by caregivers; however, providers rated the device as having lower usability. Feasibility was notable for technology issues contributing to 15% of encounters being cancelled or ending early. Conclusions: The remote exam device was successfully integrated into a complex care clinic. Data from this pilot study supports the usability and feasibility of deploying a remote exam device across a telemedicine platform in a busy and complex outpatient academic practice.

Genetic counseling clinic model expansion: Impact on access for general genetics clinic.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) implemented a Genetic Counseling Clinic (GCC), where the appointment for a general genetics indication is conducted solely by a genetic counselor (GC). We conducted a retrospective chart review of 211 patient encounters scheduled in the GCC between January 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 and collected patient demographics, wait time, appointment characteristics, referral indication, and clinical recommendations. To study impact on patient access, we compared patient demographics and appointment characteristics with 912 patient encounters scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic with a geneticist during the same time period. We found that there were not significant differences in patient demographics scheduled in the GCC as compared with the General Genetics Clinic with the exception of insurance type, where patients scheduled in the GCC were more likely to have private insurance. Patients scheduled in the GCC had a significantly shorter wait time, were more likely to complete their appointment, were more often new to the genetics division, and were more likely to be seen via telehealth (audio plus video or audio-only) as compared with patients scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic. The most common indications for patients scheduled in the GCC were post-test counseling (36.0%) followed by pre-test counseling and coordination of testing (22.3%), and first-line testing for autism, intellectual disability, and developmental delay (13.7%). Completed appointments in the GCC often resulted in the GC ordering genetic testing (67.5%). After genetic testing results were received, most patients (72.7%) did not require subsequent follow-up with the genetics division, thereby reducing burden to the medical genetics team. Our GCC increased access to genetic services and allowed GCs and clinical geneticists to better work at the top of their scope of practice.

Increasing PCP and Hospital Medicine Physician Verbal Communication During Hospital Admissions.

OBJECTIVES: During hospital admission, communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and hospital medicine (HM) physicians provides an opportunity for collaboration. Two-way communication facilitates collaboration by allowing the receiver to ask and respond to questions. At our institution, most HM-to-PCP communication occurred by telephone call after discharge. Our specific aim was to increase the percentage of patients for whom a telephone conversation occurred between HM and PCPs during hospital admission from 40% to >80%. METHODS: An improvement team that included PCPs and HM physicians redesigned the process for communication with PCPs to emphasize collaboration during hospitalization. Interventions were used to target key drivers of information transparency, PCP and HM provider buy-in, the value of early call initiation, process standardization, accommodating provider availability, and preoccupation with failure. We used improvement-science methods and run charts to measure our progress and attain our goal. RESULTS: The median weekly percentage of patients with a phone call completed during hospitalization increased from 40% to 85% at the satellite campus and 40% to 80% at the main campus. In addition to the standardized use of a telephone operator system to route calls and follow-up on unplaced calls, critical interventions included feedback on PCP call preferences to providers and the provider script for calls. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs and HM physicians applied quality-improvement methodology to ensure reliable HM-PCP communication during hospital admission. Interventions to facilitate communication between providers and learners (who may otherwise have limited interaction), such as the scripting of phone calls and feedback from PCPs to HM physicians, were important for success.