Strategies for engaging patients in co-design of an intervention.

OBJECTIVE: We provide practical guidance about using co-design methods to collaborate with patients to create patient-facing interventions, which others can use when undertaking similar projects. METHODS: This is a narrative review synthesizing co-design principles and published literature with our experience working alongside five Veteran patients of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in New England to co-design a portfolio of patient-facing materials to improve patient-centered care coordination. Our process took 12 weeks (April - June 2022) and was conducted entirely via video conference. RESULTS: Co-design is a participatory research method. Its principles include sharing power over the research process and products, agency for all participants, embracing a plurality of forms of knowledge, and mutual and reciprocal benefit. We describe three stages of the co-design process (preparatory work; design and development; feedback and closure), strategies and techniques we used at each stage, challenges we faced, and considerations for addressing them. CONCLUSION: Co-designing patient-facing interventions blends different forms of knowledge to produce practical, contextually specific interventions with ownership by the people who will use them. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Co-design is a feasible methodology for most health services research teams whose goal is to intensify patient engagement in research.

Patients' Experience of Specialty Care Coordination: Survey Development and Validation.

Purpose: Specialty care coordination relies on information flowing bidirectionally between all three participants in the "specialty care triad" - patients, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists. Measures of coordination should strive to account for the perspectives of each. As we previously developed two surveys to measure coordination of specialty care as experienced by PCPs and specialists, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a related survey of specialty care coordination as experienced by the patient, thereby completing the suite of surveys among the triad. Methods: We developed a draft survey based on literature review, patient interviews, adaptation of existing measures, and development of new items. Survey responses were collected via mail and online in two waves, August 2019-November 2019 and September 2020-May 2021, among patients (N=939) receiving medical specialty care and primary care in the Veterans Affairs health system. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess scale structure. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship of the final coordination scales to patients' overall experience of specialty care coordination. Results: A 38-item measure representing 10 factors that assess the patient's experience of coordination in specialty care among the patient, PCP, and specialist was finalized. Scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and, together, explained 59% of the variance in overall coordination. Analyses revealed an unexpected construct describing organization of care between patient and specialist that accounted for patient goals and preferences; this 10-item scale was named Patient-Centered Care Coordination. Conclusions: The final survey, Coordination of Specialty Care - Patient, or CSC-Patient for short, is a reliable instrument that can be used alone or with its companions (CSC-PCP, CSC-Specialist) to provide a detailed assessment of specialty care coordination and identify targets for coordination improvement.

Adaptations for remote research work: a modified web-push strategy compared to a mail-only strategy for administering a survey of healthcare experiences.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required that our research team change our mail-only (MO) strategy for a research survey to a strategy more manageable by staff working remotely. We used a modified web-push approach (MWP), in which patients were mailed a request to respond online and invited to call if they preferred the questionnaire by mail or phone. We also changed from a pre-completion gift to a post-completion gift card incentive. Our objective is to compare response patterns between modes for a survey that used an MO strategy pre-pandemic followed by an MWP strategy peri-pandemic for data collection. METHODS: Observational study using data from a national multi-scale survey about patients' experience of specialty care coordination administered via MO in 2019 and MWP from 2020 to 2021 to Veterans receiving primary care and specialty care within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We compared response rates, respondent characteristics and responses about care coordination between MO and MWP, applying propensity weights to account for differences in the underlying samples. RESULTS: The response rate was lower for MWP vs. MO (13.4% vs. 36.6%), OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.25-0.30, P < .001). Respondent characteristics were similar across MO and MWP. Coordination scale scores tended to be slightly higher for MWP, but the effect sizes for these differences between modes were small for 9 out of 10 scales. CONCLUSIONS: While the logistics of MWP survey data collection are well-suited to the remote research work environment, response rates were lower than those for the MO method. Future studies should examine addition of multi-mode contacts and/or pre-completion incentives to increase response rates for MWP.

Variation in telehealth use for endocrine care: Patterns and predictors under the "new normal".

INTRODUCTION: Use of telehealth for outpatient endocrine care remains common since onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, though the context for its use has matured. We aimed to describe the variation in telehealth use for outpatient endocrine visits under these "new normal" conditions and examine the patient, clinician-, and organization-level factors predicting use. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse on 167,017 endocrine visits conducted between 3/9/21 and 3/8/22. We used mixed effects logistic regression models to examine 1) use of telehealth vs. in-person care among all visits and 2) use of telephone vs. video among the subsample of telehealth visits. RESULTS: Visits were in person (58%), by telephone (29%), or by video (13%). Unique variability in telehealth use at each level of the analysis was 56% patient visit, 24% clinician, 18% facility. The strongest predictors were visit type (first vs. follow up) and clinician and facility characteristics. Among telehealth visits, unique variability in telephone (vs. video) use at each level was 44% patient visit, 24% clinician, 26% facility. The strongest predictors of telephone vs. video were visit type, patient age, and percent of the facility's population that was rural. CONCLUSIONS: We found wide variation in use of telehealth for endocrinology under the "new normal". Future research should examine clinician and facility factors driving variation, as many may be amenable to influence by clinical leaders and leveraged to enhance the availability of telehealth for all clinically appropriate patients.

Endocrinologists' Experiences With Telehealth: A Qualitative Study With Implications for Promoting Sustained Use.

OBJECTIVE: Endocrinology is well-suited to telehealth, with high rates of use and known benefits. Clinician attitudes toward telehealth will be critical to ensuring sustained use after the pandemic. We examined endocrinologists' experiences with synchronous telehealth to identify factors affecting experiences with and acceptance of the technology. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews and directed-content analysis with a purposive sample of 26 U.S. endocrinologists. Factors affecting clinicians' experiences were mapped to the human-organization-technology fit (HOT-fit) framework. RESULTS: We found that clinicians' experiences with synchronous telehealth were influenced by: (1) Clinician factors: Clinicians welcomed telehealth but expressed concerns about patient interest, rapport building, and clinical appropriateness, desiring more data to support its use. Many clinicians feared missing clinical findings on virtual examination, despite no such personal experiences. Effects on professional and personal life contributed to satisfaction, through increased flexibility but also increased workload. (2) Organizational factors: Departmental meetings and trainings supported clinicians' technical, logistical, and clinical needs, reducing resistance to telehealth use. Shifting staff responsibilities in clinical workflows improved clinicians' experiences and supported telehealth use, while mixed telehealth and in-person schedules impeded workflow. (3) Technology factors: Most clinicians preferred video visits to telephone. Usability and reliability of telehealth platforms, integration of patient self-monitoring data, and availability of IT support were crucial to a positive experience. CONCLUSION: Clinician acceptance of telehealth is influenced by clinician, organizational, and technology factors that can be leveraged to improve buy-in. Organizational leaders' attention to addressing these factors will be critical to support endocrinologists' continued provision of telehealth for their patients.

Clinical Appropriateness of Telehealth: A Qualitative Study of Endocrinologists' Perspectives.

Background: Outpatient endocrinology care delivered by telehealth is likely to remain common after the pandemic. There are few data to guide endocrinologists' judgments of clinical appropriateness (safety and effectiveness) for telehealth by synchronous video. We examined how, in the absence of guidelines, endocrinologists determine clinical appropriateness for telehealth, and we identified their strategies to navigate barriers to safe and effective use. Methods: We conducted qualitative, semi-structuredinterviews with 26 purposively selected US endocrinologists. We used a directed content analysis to characterize participant perceptions of which patients and situations were clinically appropriate for telehealth and to identify adaptations they made to accommodate telehealth visits. Results: Endocrinologists' perspectives about appropriateness for telehealth were influenced by clinical considerations, nonclinical patient factors, and the type and timing of the visit. These factors were weighed differently across individual participants according to their risk tolerance, values related to the physical examination and patient relationships, and impressions of patient capabilities and preferences. Some participants made practice adaptations that increased their comfort offering telehealth to a wider swath of patients. Conclusions: Endocrinologists' judgments about clinical appropriateness of telehealth for different patient situations varied widely across participants. The risk of such divergent approaches to determining appropriateness is unintended and clinically unwarranted variation in use of telehealth, compromising quality of care. Expert consensus is needed to guide endocrinologists now, along with studies to anchor future evidence-based guidelines for determining clinical appropriateness of telehealth in endocrinology.

The Effect of Clinicians' Personal Acquaintance on Specialty Care Coordination as the Sharing of an EHR Increases.

We used an online survey to measure how personal acquaintance with referring primary care providers (PCPs) affects specialists' experience of care coordination as use of a shared electronic health record (EHR) increases. Only 9% of specialists rated Overall Coordination as 9 or 10 out of 10. Personal acquaintance positively impacted Overall Coordination and all measured coordination subdomains. This effect was attenuated, but persisted, even at higher levels of EHR sharing. The impact of a shared EHR alone was limited to Overall Coordination and the Data Transfer subdomains. Health systems can improve coordination through investment in clinician relationships, while research should address the gaps in coordination even with widespread personal acquaintance and shared EHRs.