Virtual prenatal visits associated with high measures of patient experience and satisfaction among average-risk patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual visits have the potential to decrease barriers to prenatal care stemming from transportation, work, and childcare concerns. However, data regarding patient experience and satisfaction with virtual visits remain limited in obstetrics. To address this gap, we explore average-risk pregnant women's experiences with virtual visits and compare satisfaction with virtual vs. in-person visits as a secondary aim. METHODS: In this IRB-approved, prospective cohort study, we surveyed pregnant women after their first virtual visit between October 7, 2019 and March 20, 2020. Using heterogeneous purposive sampling, we identified a subset of respondents with diverse experiences and opinions for interviews. For comparison, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) satisfaction data were collected after in-person visits during the study timeframe from a control cohort with the same prenatal providers. Logistic regression controlling for age, previous pregnancies, and prior live births compared satisfaction data between virtual and in-person visits. Other quantitative survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Free text survey responses and interview data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Ninety five percent (n = 165/174) of surveys and 90% (n = 18/20) of interviews were completed. Most participants were Caucasian, married, and of middle to high income. 69% (114/165) agreed that their virtual appointment was as good as in-person; only 13% (21/165) disagreed. Almost all (148/165, 90%) would make another virtual appointment. Qualitative data highlighted ease of access, comparable provider-patient communication, confidence in care quality, and positive remote monitoring experiences. Recognizing these advantages but also inherent limitations, interviews emphasized interspersing telemedicine with in-person prenatal encounters. CAHPS responses after in-person visits were available for 60 patients. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in three measures of satisfaction (p = 0.16, 0.09, 0.13) between virtual and in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk population, virtual prenatal visits provide a patient-centered alternative to traditional in-person encounters with high measures of patient experience and no significant difference in satisfaction. Obstetric providers should explore telemedicine to improve access - and, during the ongoing pandemic, to minimize exposures - using patients' experiences for guidance. More research is needed regarding virtual visits' medical quality, integration into prenatal schedules, and provision of equitable care for diverse populations.

Informed or anxious: patient preferences for release of test results of increasing sensitivity on electronic patient portals.

Worldwide, governments and healthcare systems are moving towards increased transparency to improve care quality, increase patient engagement, and decrease costs. For example, the American 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule requires providers to grant patients access to their electronic medical record. Unfortunately, limited research guides release of test results to online patient portals, especially concerning emotionally sensitive information. To address this gap, we surveyed the largest patient sample published to date. This cross-sectional survey project was conducted by the Market Research & Insights and Office of Patient Experience departments at a large academic medical center. Data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. Of 8030 respondents, 74% and 57% accepted first learning their results online for cholesterol and strep throat tests, respectively. Most prefer in-person appointments for more serious tests detecting cancer (54%) and fetal miscarriage (53%). Excluding sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing, there are no clinically significant differences in preference between respondents previously diagnosed with the condition in question and respondents without such experience. When weighing the possibility of a 3-week wait to hear from their provider, most patients want automatic release of cholesterol (94%), strep throat (90%), genetic (68%), and STD (60%) test results, but the majority say it is unacceptable to receive Alzheimer's (52%), fetal miscarriage (51%), and cancer (59%) test results this way. Electronic results release is acceptable for less serious tests, but not for more consequential tests. Providers should consider patient preferences when developing policies to increase healthcare transparency. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12553-021-00628-5.

Improving Real-World Innovation and Problem Solving in Clinical Ethics: Insights from the First Clinical Ethics Un-Conference.

Despite an abundance of academic conferences, clinical ethicists lacked a forum to share innovative practices with peers and to generate solutions to common challenges. Organizers of the first Clinical Ethics Un-Conference developed a working event centered on active participation and problem solving through peer learning, with the goal of improving real-world practice. Registrants included 95 individuals from 64 institutions. Attendees were surveyed immediately after the Un-Conference, and again eight months later. After eight months, 85 percent (n = 33/39) of the survey respondents reported that they found the event "highly impactful" or "somewhat impactful" to their clinical practice, and 23 attendees reported that they had implemented ideas or projects inspired by the event. Three sets of best practice guidelines and four white papers were published from the event. As the field of clinical ethics continues to advance and evolve, this working event format offers an innovative, disruptive alternative to a traditional conference format and may serve as a model for future efforts aimed at improving real-world clinical ethics practice.

A Structured Peer Assessment Method with Regular Reinforcement Promotes Longitudinal Self-Perceived Development of Medical Students' Feedback Skills.

BACKGROUND: Given that training is integral to providing constructive peer feedback, we examined the impact of a regularly reinforced, structured peer assessment method on student-reported feedback abilities throughout a two-year preclinical Communication Skills course. METHODS: Three consecutive 32-student medical school classes were introduced to the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method for providing verbal assessment during Year 1 Communication Skills orientation. In biweekly small-group sessions, students received worksheets reiterating the method and practiced giving verbal feedback to peers. Periodic questionnaires evaluated student perceptions of feedback delivery and the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method. RESULTS: Biweekly reinforcement of the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method encouraged its uptake, which correlated with reports of more constructive, specific feedback. Compared to non-users, students who used the method noted greater improvement in comfort with assessing peers in Year 1 and continued growth of feedback abilities in Year 2. Comfort with providing modifying feedback and verbal feedback increased over the two-year course, while comfort with providing reinforcing feedback and written feedback remained similarly high. Concurrently, student preference for feedback anonymity decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Regular reinforcement of a peer assessment framework can increase student usage of the method, which promotes the expansion of self-reported peer feedback skills over time. These findings support investigation of analogous strategies in other medical education settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01242-w.

Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives on Scarce Resource Allocation: Lessons Learned from Policymaking in a Time of Crisis.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.

Ethical challenges for women's healthcare highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare policies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to safeguard community health have the potential to disadvantage women in three areas. First, protocols for deferral of elective surgery may assign a lower priority to important reproductive outcomes. Second, policies regarding the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 may not capture the complexity of the considerations related to pregnancy. Third, policies formulated to reduce infectious exposure inadvertently may increase disparities in maternal health outcomes and rates of violence towards women. In this commentary, we outline these challenges unique to women's healthcare in a pandemic, provide preliminary recommendations and identify areas for further exploration and refinement of policy.

Ethical Implications of Donor Type for Uterus Transplantation: Why We Should Remain Wary of Using Living Donors.

Over the last few years, research teams have made significant advancements in treating absolute uterine factor infertility through uterus transplantation, culminating in the birth of the first US baby born from a uterus transplant in November 2017. However, studies have differed on the choice of either deceased or living donors, with some centers even exploring both methods. As researchers continue to investigate the medical feasibility of these approaches, it is also important for the medical community to consider how deceased and living uterus donation differ ethically. We argue that if living and deceased donation demonstrate equivalent clinical efficacy and the deceased donor pool is sufficient, living uterus donation should be reevaluated and may no longer be ethically justifiable.

Patients Left Behind: Ethical Challenges in Caring for Indirect Victims of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, health care systems worldwide canceled or delayed elective surgeries, outpatient procedures, and clinic appointments. Although such measures may have been necessary to preserve medical resources and to prevent potential exposures early in the pandemic, moving forward, the indirect effects of such an extensive medical shutdown must not outweigh the direct harms of Covid-19. In this essay, we argue for the reopening of evidence-based health care with assurance provided to patients about the safety and necessity of high-value vaccinations, screenings, therapeutics, and procedures. To ensure that virtually all non-Covid-related services do not come to a halt again, health care systems and physician practices must preemptively increase their capacity, secure adequate personal protective equipment to safeguard health care personnel, and develop a measured approach to reclosing such routine health care, should it become necessary in the future.

Pediatric Ethics Consultation: Practical Considerations for the Clinical Ethics Consultant.

Clinical ethics consultants face a wide range of ethical dilemmas that require broad knowledge and skills. Although there is considerable overlap with the approach to adult consultation, ethics consultants must be aware of differences when they work with infant, pediatric, and adolescent cases. This article addresses unique considerations in the pediatric setting, reviews foundational theories on parental authority, suggests practical approaches to pediatric consultation, and outlines current available resources for clinical ethics consultants who wish to deepen their skills in this area.

Uterus Transplantation: The Ethics of Using Deceased Versus Living Donors.

Research teams have made considerable progress in treating absolute uterine factor infertility through uterus transplantation, though studies have differed on the choice of either deceased or living donors. While researchers continue to analyze the medical feasibility of both approaches, little attention has been paid to the ethics of using deceased versus living donors as well as the protections that must be in place for each. Both types of uterus donation also pose unique regulatory challenges, including how to allocate donated organs; whether the donor / donor's family has any rights to the uterus and resulting child; how to manage contact between the donor / donor's family, recipient, and resulting child; and how to track outcomes moving forward.

Discomfort as a Catalyst: An Ethical Analysis of Donation after Cardiac Death in a Patient with Locked-In Syndrome.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) traditionally occurs in two patient populations: (1) those who do not meet neurological death criteria but who have suffered severe neurological damage, and (2) those who are fully alert and awake but are dependent on machines. This case highlights the unique dilemma when a patient falls between these two populations-conscious and cognitively intact, but completely paralyzed except for limited eye movement, afflicted by what the medical community refers to as locked-in syndrome. Prompted by the treatment team's discomfort, an ethics consultant examined whether the team was obligated to discuss a decision to donate with the patient, who was a registered organ donor. This article shows how, in determining whether or not to talk to the patient or family during end-of-life decision making, the weight assigned to the various ethical concerns in the case-the patient's condition, the decision to be made, and the family's agreement or disagreement regarding the patient's wishes-can "swing the pendulum" of ethical analysis in different ways. The comfort of the patient must be accorded the highest priority, as well as the needs of the patient's family. This case study highlights the nuanced contextual factors necessary to guide a treatment team's approach to DCD for a patient with uncertain decision-making capacity.