Telehealth as a Tool to Improve Access and Reduce No-Show Rates in a Large Safety-Net Population in the USA.

Low-income populations are at higher risk of missing appointments, resulting in fragmented care and worsening disparities. Compared to face-to-face encounters, telehealth visits are more convenient and could improve access for low-income populations. All outpatient encounters at the Parkland Health between March 2020 and June 2022 were included. No-show rates were compared across encounter types (face-to-face vs telehealth). Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the association of encounter type and no-show encounters, clustering by individual patient and adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and social vulnerability. Interaction analyses were performed. There were 355,976 unique patients with 2,639,284 scheduled outpatient encounters included in this dataset. 59.9% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity, while 27.0% were of Black race. In a fully adjusted model, telehealth visits were associated with a 29% reduction in odds of no-show (aOR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.70-0.72). Telehealth visits were associated with significantly greater reductions in probability of no-show among patients of Black race and among those who resided in the most socially vulnerable areas. Telehealth encounters were more effective in reducing no-shows in primary care and internal medicine subspecialties than surgical specialties or other non-surgical specialties. These data suggest that telehealth may serve as a tool to improve access to care in socially complex patient populations.

A Review of the Effectiveness of Audio-Only Telemedicine for Chronic Disease Management.

Background: The clinical effectiveness of audio-only telemedicine has not been fully quantified. The pandemic afforded a unique situation to retrospectively observe clinical outcomes of care for three disease cohorts within three care models, including audio-only telemedicine. Methods: Patients were classified into three care models: audio-only telemedicine, in-person, and hybrid. Each model was compared with an aggregate group before the onset of the pandemic and within each group during the pandemic. Each disease cohort was evaluated in cross-sectional and paired analyses. Results: Patients (n = 52,720) were grouped within one of three care models. A majority (n = 48,335) of patients qualified for the "pre" group comparison. The audio-only telemedicine care model showed similar control of renal disease, hypertension control, and diabetes management than in-person and hybrid care models. Conclusions: Audio-only telemedicine appears to be noninferior to in-person or hybrid models for chronic disease management for the diseases studied. In all instances, it had similar control compared with the in-person care model. We acknowledge the limitations of this study, including convenience sampling and a limited observation timeframe. Audio-only telemedicine should be considered a viable care model modality that can be integrated into options for patient care. Further study and investment are warranted, as it provides efficacy and convenience to health systems (Clinical Registration Number # 32449).

You don't have to know the answers to write poetry.

It's a great pleasure to be able to spend the next six months as the RCN's first ever writer in residence. My role is part of an exciting new project at the RCN Library and Archive called Service Scrapbooks: Nursing, Storytelling and the First World War, which is funded by a £60,600 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund.