Patient evaluation of a virtual visit program for adults with congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Improved longevity for adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) necessitates regular, longitudinal care for this population. Telemedicine has emerged as a strategy to increase access to subspecialty care. We evaluated patient experience with a virtual visit program in the pre-COVID era to identify patient-centered benefits and limitations. METHODS: We enrolled patients for 30-minute synchronous videoconferencing virtual visits at our institution between October 2013 and March 2019. All patients were Massachusetts residents. Patients were surveyed and their characteristics were abstracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 264 virtual visits were conducted among 174 patients with a median age of 40 years. Patients traveled a median of 70 miles for in-person visits. Many visits were to review patient data (47%), and most individuals had moderate complexity CHD (45%). Patients reported very high satisfaction with a median visit rating of 10. Patients mostly preferred virtual visits when considering convenience and cost. No difference in preference to in-person visits was reported when considering sharing private information, confidence that concerns would be addressed, and overall visit quality. In-person visits were still preferred for personal connections and showing a physical problem. CONCLUSION: We find that patients are highly satisfied with virtual visits. ACHD programs should consider blended virtual and in-person care. Long-term regulatory provisions will further improve care through the expansion of telemedicine in the post-COVID era.

Disparities in patient engagement with video telemedicine among high-video-use providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims: Known racial, ethnic, age, and socioeconomic disparities in video telemedicine engagement may widen existing health inequities. We assessed if telemedicine disparities were alleviated among patients of high-video-use providers at a large cardiovascular practice. Methods and results: All telemedicine visits from 16 March to 31 October 2020 and patient demographics were collected from an administrative database. Providers in the upper quintile of video use were classified as high-video-use providers. Descriptive statistics and a multivariable logistic model were calculated to determine the distribution and predictors of a patient ever having a video visit vs. only phone visits. A total of 24 470 telemedicine visits were conducted among 18 950 patients by 169 providers. Video visits accounted for 48% of visits (52% phone). Among telemedicine visits conducted by high-video-use providers (n = 33), ever video patients were younger (P < 0.001) and included 78% of Black patients vs. 86% of White patients (P < 0.001), 74% of Hispanic patients vs. 86% of non-Hispanic patients (P < 0.001), and 79% of public insurance patients vs. 91% of private insurance patients (P < 0.001). High-video-use provider patients had 9.4 (95% confidence interval 8.4-10.4) times the odds of having video visit compared to low-video-use provider patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that provider-focused solutions alone, including promoting provider adoption of video visits, may not adequately reduce disparities in telemedicine engagement. Even in the presence of successful clinical infrastructure for telemedicine, individuals of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, older age, and with public insurance continue to have decreased engagement. To achieve equity in telemedicine, patient-focused design is needed.