2023 Update in ambulatory general internal medicine.

The practice of outpatient medicine is demanding, encompasses a wide scope of practice, and leaves little time for internists to stay up to date with the current literature. This article reviews 5 studies published in 2022 and 2023 that have the potential to change the practice of outpatient medicine. Topics covered include chronic kidney disease, secondary cardiovascular disease, kidney stones, obesity, and lipid management.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Diffuse Lung Disease.

Diffuse lung disease, frequently referred to as interstitial lung disease, encompasses numerous disorders affecting the lung parenchyma. The potential etiologies of diffuse lung disease are broad with several hundred established clinical syndromes and pathologies currently identified. Imaging plays a critical role in diagnosis and follow-up of many of these diseases, although multidisciplinary discussion is the current standard for diagnosis of several DLDs. This document aims to establish guidelines for evaluation of diffuse lung diseases for 1) initial imaging of suspected diffuse lung disease, 2) initial imaging of suspected acute exacerbation or acute deterioration in cases of confirmed diffuse lung disease, and 3) clinically indicated routine follow-up of confirmed diffuse lung disease without acute deterioration. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Digitally Disconnected: Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Digital Divide and Potential Solutions.

BACKGROUND: As telemedicine utilization increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, divergent usage patterns for video and audio-only telephone visits emerged. Older, low-income, minority, and non-English speaking Medicaid patients are at highest risk of experiencing technology access and digital literacy barriers. This raises concern for disparities in health care access and widening of the "digital divide," the separation of those with technological access and knowledge and those without. While studies demonstrate correlation between racial and socioeconomic demographics and technological access and ability, individual patients' perspectives of the divide and its impacts remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to interview patients to understand their perspectives on (1) the definition, causes, and impact of the digital divide; (2) whose responsibility it is to address this divide, and (3) potential solutions to mitigate the digital divide. METHODS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted 54 semistructured telephone interviews with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients who had virtual visits (phone, video, or both) between March and September 2020 at the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) primary care clinics. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS: Patients were keenly aware of the digital divide and described impacts beyond health care, including employment, education, community and social contexts, and personal economic stability. Patients described that individuals, government, libraries, schools, health care organizations, and even private businesses all shared the responsibility to address the divide. Proposed solutions to address the divide included conducting community technology needs assessments and improving technology access, literacy training, and resource awareness. Recognizing that some individuals will never cross the divide, patients also emphasized continued support of low-tech communication methods and health care delivery to prevent widening of the digital divide. Furthermore, patients viewed technology access and literacy as drivers of the social determinants of health (SDOH), profoundly influencing how SDOH function to worsen or improve health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives provide valuable insight into the digital divide and can inform solutions to mitigate health and resulting societal inequities. Future work is needed to understand the digital needs of disconnected individuals and communities. As clinical care and delivery continue to integrate telehealth, studies are needed to explore whether having a video or audio-only phone visit results in different patient outcomes and utilization. Advocacy efforts to disseminate public and private resources can also expand device and broadband internet access, improve technology literacy, and increase funding to support both high- and low-tech forms of health care delivery for the disconnected.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Mediastinal Masses.

Mediastinal masses can present with symptoms, signs, and syndromes or incidentally. Selecting the appropriate diagnostic imaging study for mediastinal mass evaluation requires awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the various imaging modalities with regard to tissue characterization, soft tissue contrast, and surveillance. This publication expounds on the differences between chest radiography, CT, PET/CT, ultrasound, and MRI in terms of their ability to decipher and surveil mediastinal masses. Making the optimal imaging choice can yield diagnostic specificity, avert unnecessary biopsy and surgery, guide the interventionist when necessary, and serve as a means of surveillance for probably benign, but indeterminate mediastinal masses. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Growth of Ambulatory Virtual Visits and Differential Use by Patient Sociodemographics at One Urban Academic Medical Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread interest in the use of virtual (ie, telephone and video) visits for ambulatory patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, studies examining their adoption during the pandemic by race, sex, age, or insurance are lacking. Moreover, there have been limited evaluations to date of the impact of these sociodemographic factors on the use of telephone versus video visits. Such assessments are crucial to identify, understand, and address differences in care delivery across patient populations, particularly those that could affect access to or quality of care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine changes in ambulatory visit volume and type (ie, in-person vs virtual and telephone vs video visits) by patient sociodemographics during the COVID-19 pandemic at one urban academic medical center. METHODS: We compared volumes and patient sociodemographics (age, sex, race, insurance) for visits during the first 11 weeks following the COVID-19 national emergency declaration (March 15 to May 31, 2020) to visits in the corresponding weeks in 2019. Additionally, for visits during the COVID-19 study period, we examined differences in visit type (ie, in-person versus virtual, and telephone versus video visits) by sociodemographics using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Total visit volumes in the COVID-19 study period comprised 51.4% of the corresponding weeks in 2019 (n=80,081 vs n=155,884 visits). Although patient sociodemographics between the COVID-19 study period in 2020 and the corresponding weeks in 2019 were similar, 60.5% (n=48,475) of the visits were virtual, compared to 0% in 2019. Of the virtual visits, 61.2% (n=29,661) were video based, and 38.8% (n=18,814) were telephone based. In the COVID-19 study period, virtual (vs in-person) visits were more likely among patients with race categorized as other (vs White) and patients with Medicare (vs commercial) insurance and less likely for men, patients aged 0-17 years, 65-74 years, or ≥75 years (compared to patients aged 18-45 years), and patients with Medicaid insurance or insurance categorized as other. Among virtual visits, compared to telephone visits, video visits were more likely to be adopted by patients aged 0-17 years (vs 18-45 years), but less likely for all other age groups, men, Black (vs White) patients, and patients with Medicare or Medicaid (vs commercial) insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual visits comprised the majority of ambulatory visits during the COVID-19 study period, of which a majority were by video. Sociodemographic differences existed in the use of virtual versus in-person and video versus telephone visits. To ensure equitable care delivery, we present five policy recommendations to inform the further development of virtual visit programs and their reimbursement.

If you build it, they may not come: modifiable barriers to patient portal use among pre- and post-kidney transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient access to health information using electronic patient portals is increasingly common. Portal use has the potential to improve patients' engagement with their health and is particularly important for patients with chronic illness; however, patients' abilities, attitudes, and use of portals are poorly understood. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional survey was conducted of 240 consecutive pre- and post-kidney transplant patients of all levels of technological proficiency who presented to an urban transplant center in the United States. The investigator-developed Patient Information and Technology Assessment-Patient Portal was used to assess patients' attitudes towards the use of patient portals. RESULTS: Most patients surveyed did not use the patient portal (n = 176, 73%). Patients were more likely to use the patient portal if they were White, highly educated, in the post-transplant period, more comfortable with technology, and reported being a frequent internet user (P < .05). The most common reasons for not using the patient portal included: (1) preference for traditional communication, (2) not being aware of the portal, (3) low technological proficiency, and (4) poor interoperability between the portal at the transplant center and the patient's primary care center. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several modifiable barriers to patient portal use. Some barriers can be addressed by patient education and training on portal use, and federal initiatives are underway to improve interoperability; however, a preference for traditional communications represents the most prominent barrier. Additional strategies are needed to improve portal adoption by encouraging acceptance of technologies as a way of clinical communication.

It Takes Two to Tango: Engaging Patients and Providers With Portals.

Patient portals are designed to be tools to more fully engage patients in their health care and help enable them to better manage their own health information. As the U.S. health care system rapidly adopted electronic health records (EHRs) over the past decade, many with linked patient portals, enthusiasm and expectations for this new technology as a means to engage and empower patients grew. Most patient portals have a set of core features designed to facilitate health care transactions, information tracking, and communication with care team members. The evidence supporting the anticipated benefits of patient portals on patient outcomes, however, remains mixed and incomplete. Moreover, a paradox exists in that, despite a high consumer interest in patient portals, widespread adoption remains relatively low. Potential reasons include the need for greater provider endorsement, examination and adaptation of clinical workflows, and the recognition of patient engagement as a reciprocal process.

Hypertension in Women: Evaluation and Management.

Hypertension is the most commonly encountered chronic medical condition in primary care and one of the most significant modifiable cardiovascular risk factors for women and men. Timely diagnosis and evidence-based management offer an important opportunity to reduce the risk of hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, including cardiovascular events, end-stage renal disease, and heart failure. Clinical trials have shown significant improvements in patient-oriented outcomes when hypertension is well-controlled, yet many hypertensive patients remain undiagnosed, uncontrolled, or managed with inappropriate pharmacotherapy. This article discusses the initial diagnosis, evaluation, and management of hypertension in nonpregnant women, with topics for obstetrician-gynecologists and women's health providers.

Preparing for the primary care clinic: an ambulatory boot camp for internal medicine interns.

INTRODUCTION: Internal medicine (IM) interns start continuity clinic with variable ambulatory training. Multiple other specialties have utilized a boot camp style curriculum to improve surgical and procedural skills, but boot camps have not been used to improve interns' ambulatory knowledge and confidence. The authors implemented and assessed the impact of an intern ambulatory boot camp pilot on primary care knowledge, confidence, and curricular satisfaction. METHODS: During July 2014, IM interns attended ambulatory boot camp. It included clinically focused case-based didactic sessions on common ambulatory topics as well as orientation to the clinic and electronic medical records. Interns anonymously completed a 15-question pre-test on topics covered in the boot camp as well as an identical post-test after the boot camp. The interns were surveyed regarding their confidence and satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-eight interns participated in the boot camp. Prior to the boot camp, few interns reported confidence managing common outpatient conditions. The average pre-test knowledge score was 46.3%. The average post-test knowledge score significantly improved to 76.1% (p<0.001). All interns reported that the boot camp was good preparation for clinics and 97% felt that the boot camp boosted their confidence. CONCLUSIONS: The ambulatory boot camp pilot improved primary care knowledge, and interns thought it was good preparation for clinic. The ambulatory boot camp was well received and may be an effective way to improve the preparation of interns for primary care clinic. Further assessment of clinical performance and expansion to other programs and specialties should be considered.