RESUMO
Introduction: Health care systems rose to the challenges of COVID-19 by creating or expanding telehealth programs to ensure that patients could access care without an in-person appointment. Traditionally, physicians receive limited formal telemedicine training, making preparedness for this transition uneven. To describe challenges to and attitudes toward providing virtual patient care, we distributed a survey to physicians within our system who largely had no formal prior training/experience with telemedicine, but transitioned to routine telemedicine use. Data collected are then used to offer actionable recommendations for health system leaders and medical educators. Materials and Methods: Surveys were distributed to all faculty outpatient general internal medicine physicians working at any New York University Langone Health, New York City Health + Hospitals/Bellevue and Gouverneur, and the VA NY Harbor Health System (n = 378) in mid-2020. Survey items consisted of Likert and open-ended questions related to experience with televisits (13 items) and attitudes toward care (24 items). Results: Telehealth-related challenges varied by site and modality. Primary challenges included establishing a connection from the patient's (98%) or physician's end (84%) and difficulty in the following domains: working with team members (39%), physical examinations (95%), establishing new patient relationships (70%), and taking history (40%), among others. In thematic analysis, significant themes with illustrative qualitative commentary emerged related to technological challenges, new systems issues, and new patient/physician communication experiences. Discussion: Experience differences were rooted in the type of technology employed. Safety-net practices conducted mostly telephonic visits, whereas private outpatient sites utilized video, despite both using identical electronic medical records. As we consider a "new normal" and prolonged community transmission of COVID-19 infection, it is essential to establish telemedicine training, tools, and protocols that meet the needs of both patients and physicians.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Telemedicina , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Cidade de Nova Iorque , Pandemias , Telemedicina/métodosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based preventive care in the USA is underutilized, diminishing population health and worsening health disparities. We developed Project ACTIVE, a program to improve adherence with preventive care goals through personalized and patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Project ACTIVE improved utilization of preventive care and/or estimated life expectancy compared to usual care. DESIGN: Single-site randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-randomized 140 English or Spanish speaking adult patients in primary care with at least one of twelve unfulfilled preventive care goals based on USPSTF grade A and B recommendations. INTERVENTION: Project ACTIVE employs a validated mathematical model to predict and rank individualized estimates of health benefit that would arise from improved adherence to different preventive care guidelines. Clinical staff engaged the participant in a shared medical decision-making (SMD) process to identify highest priority unfulfilled clinical goals, and health coaching staff engaged the participant to develop and monitor action steps to reach those goals. MAIN MEASURES: Change in number of unfulfilled preventive care goals from USPSTF grade A and B recommendations and change in overall gain in estimated life expectancy. KEY RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, Project ACTIVE increased the average number of fulfilled preventive care goals out of 12 by 0.68 in the intervention arm compared with 0.15 in the control arm (mean difference [95% CI] 0.53 [0.19-0.86]), yielding a gain in estimated life expectancy of 8.8 months (3.8, 14.2). In a per-protocol analysis, Project ACTIVE increased fulfilled preventive care goals by 0.80 in the intervention arm compared with 0.16 in the control arm (mean difference [95% CI], 0.65 [0.25-1.04]), yielding a gain in estimated life expectancy of 13.7 months (6.2, 21.2). Among the 12 preventive care goals, more improvement occurred for alcohol use, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Project ACTIVE improved unfulfilled preventive care goals and improved estimated life expectancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04211883.
Assuntos
Hipertensão , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Adulto , Humanos , Expectativa de Vida , Assistência Centrada no PacienteRESUMO
Chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States, and much of this burden can be attributed to lifestyle and behavioral risk factors. Lifestyle medicine is an approach to preventing and treating lifestyle-related chronic disease using evidence-based lifestyle modification as a primary modality. NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest municipal public health care system in the United States, is a national pioneer in incorporating lifestyle medicine systemwide. In 2019, a pilot lifestyle medicine program was launched at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue to improve cardiometabolic health in high-risk patients through intensive support for evidence-based lifestyle changes. Analyses of program data collected from January 29, 2019 to February 26, 2020 demonstrated feasibility, high demand for services, high patient satisfaction, and clinically and statistically significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. This pilot is being expanded to 6 new NYC Health + Hospitals sites spanning all 5 NYC boroughs. As part of the expansion, many changes have been implemented to enhance the original pilot model, scale services effectively, and generate more interest and incentives in lifestyle medicine for staff and patients across the health care system, including a plant-based default meal program for inpatients. This narrative review describes the pilot model and outcomes, the expansion process, and lessons learned to serve as a guide for other health systems.
RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to determine whether a point-of-care intervention that navigates willing, low-acuity patients from the emergency department (ED) to a Primary Care Clinic will increase future primary care follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental trial at an urban safety net hospital. Adults presenting to the ED for select low-acuity problems were eligible. Patients were excluded if arriving by emergency medical services, if febrile, or if the triage nurse believed they required ED care. We enrolled 965 patients. Navigators escorted a subset of willing participants to the Primary Care Clinic (in the same hospital complex), where they were assigned a personal physician, were given an overview of clinic services, and received same-day clinic care. The primary outcome was Primary Care Clinic follow-up within 1 year of the index ED visit among patients having no previous primary care provider. RESULTS: In the bivariate intention-to-treat analysis, 50.3% of intervention group patients versus 36.9% of control group patients with no previous primary care provider had at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up visit in the year after the intervention. In the multivariable analysis, the absolute difference in having at least 1 Primary Care Clinic follow-up for the intervention group compared with the control group was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 2.2% to 16.3%). There was no significant difference in the number of future ED visits. CONCLUSION: A point-of-care intervention offering low-acuity ED patients the opportunity to alternatively be treated at the hospital's Primary Care Clinic resulted in increased future primary care follow-up compared with standard ED referral practices.
Assuntos
Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Assistência ao Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than 675 million confirmed cases and nearly 7 million deaths worldwide [1]. While testing for COVID-19 was initially centered in health care facilities, with required reporting to health departments, it is increasingly being performed in the home with rapid antigen testing [2]. Most at-home tests are self-interpreted and not reported to a provider or health department, which could lead to delayed reporting or underreporting of cases [3]. As such, there is a strong possibility that reported cases may become a less reliable indicator of transmission over time.
RESUMO
In the spring of 2022, mpox spread to non-endemic countries, including the United States. In New York City (NYC), vaccine demand grew as quickly as case counts. With the leadership of the Regional Emerging Special Pathogens Treatment Center (RESPTC) at NYC Health and Hospitals/Bellevue (NYC H+H)-part of the largest public hospital system in the United States-an innovative vaccination model was established that overcame challenges involving health inequities, inadequate access, and lack of vaccine uptake, to successfully administer JYNNEOS vaccines to over 12,000 patients. Transmission has slowed since its peak in August 2022, which has been attributed to successful vaccination campaigns, infection-induced immunity, and behavioral changes among those at highest risk; however, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assessment released on 4 April 2023 suggests jurisdictions with low vaccination levels (<35%) remain at risk for an mpox resurgence. Here, we summarize the critical aspects of our mpox vaccination model in NYC, which include integration into routine clinical care, prioritization of health equity, and reutilization of COVID-19 vaccination systems, to provide valuable insights for healthcare institutions as we move into the next stage of this ongoing outbreak.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs. METHODS: Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams. RESULTS: 108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.
Assuntos
Médicos , Determinantes Sociais da Saúde , Humanos , Retroalimentação , Inquéritos e Questionários , Atenção Primária à SaúdeRESUMO
The 2022 mpox outbreak in New York City posed challenges to rapidly scaling up treatment capacity. We describe a telehealth treatment model launched during this outbreak that facilitated healthcare provider treatment capacity, and was able to adhere to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sponsored expanded access investigational new drug (EA-IND) protocol for tecovirimat. Sixty-nine patients were evaluated and prescribed tecovirimat for mpox through telehealth visits at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue and NYU Langone Health from June to August 2022. Thirty-two (46.4%) were previously diagnosed with HIV. Forty-four (63.8%) reported full recovery, with the remainder lost to follow-up. Most patients (n = 60, 87.0%) attended at least one follow-up visit (either in person or through telehealth) after starting treatment. We observed favorable treatment outcomes, with no serious adverse events, hospitalizations, or deaths related to mpox. While equitable access to telehealth remains a limitation that needs to be addressed, this telehealth model enabled a rapid scale-up of tecovirimat prescription during the mpox outbreak, and should be considered as an important tool used to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks.
RESUMO
The objective of this study was to compare unannounced standardized patient (USP) and patient reports of care. Patient satisfaction surveys and USP checklist results collected at an urban, public hospital were compared to identify items included in both surveys. Qualitative commentary was reviewed to better understand USP and patient satisfaction survey data. Analyses included χ2 and Mann-Whitney U test. Patients provided significantly higher ratings on 10 of the 11 items when compared to USPs. USPs may provide a more objective perspective on a clinical encounter than a real patient, reinforcing the notion that real patients skew overly positive or negative.
RESUMO
Similar to the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York City was the national epicenter of the ongoing 2022 mpox (formerly monkeypox) outbreak. Cases quickly began to rise in July 2022, primarily in gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men. Tools in the form of a reliable diagnostic test, an effective vaccine, and a viable treatment option have been available from the onset, although logistically complex to roll out. The special pathogens program at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, the flagship facility for the largest public hospital system in the United States, collaborated with multiple departments within Bellevue, the hospital system, and the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, to swiftly establish ambulatory testing, immunizations, patient-centered inpatient care, and outpatient therapeutics. With the ongoing mpox outbreak, hospitals and local health departments must prepare a systemwide response to identify and isolate patients and provide high-quality care. Findings from our experience can help guide institutions in developing a multipronged, comprehensive response to the ongoing mpox outbreak.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Mpox , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero , Masculino , Humanos , Cidade de Nova Iorque/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Homossexualidade Masculina , Pandemias , Provedores de Redes de Segurança , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controleRESUMO
Importance: Financial incentives for weight management may increase use of evidence-based strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Objective: To examine the effects of 2 financial incentive strategies developed using behavioral economic theory when added to provision of weight management resources. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-group, randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2017 to May 2021 at 3 hospital-based clinics in New York City, New York, and Los Angeles, California. A total of 1280 adults with obesity living in low-income neighborhoods were invited to participate, and 668 were enrolled. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to goal-directed incentives, outcome-based incentives, or a resources-only group. The resources-only group participants were given a 1-year commercial weight-loss program membership, self-monitoring tools (digital scale, food journal, and physical activity monitor), health education, and monthly one-on-one check-in visits. The goal-directed group included resources and linked financial incentives to evidence-based weight-loss behaviors. The outcome-based arm included resources and linked financial incentives to percentage of weight loss. Participants in the incentive groups could earn up to $750. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients achieving 5% or greater weight loss at 6 months. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 668 participants enrolled was 47.7 (12.4) years; 541 (81.0%) were women, 485 (72.6%) were Hispanic, and 99 (14.8%) were Black. The mean (SD) weight at enrollment was 98.96 (20.54) kg, and the mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 37.95 (6.55). At 6 months, the adjusted proportion of patients who lost at least 5% of baseline weight was 22.1% in the resources-only group, 39.0% in the goal-directed group, and 49.1% in the outcome-based incentive group (difference, 10.08 percentage points [95% CI, 1.31-18.85] for outcome based vs goal directed; difference, 27.03 percentage points [95% CI, 18.20-35.86] and 16.95 percentage points [95% CI, 8.18-25.72] for outcome based or goal directed vs resources only, respectively). However, mean percentage of weight loss was similar in the incentive arms. Mean earned incentives was $440.44 in the goal-directed group and $303.56 in the outcome-based group, but incentives did not improve financial well-being. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, outcome-based and goal-directed financial incentives were similarly effective, and both strategies were more effective than providing resources only for clinically significant weight loss in low-income populations with obesity. Future studies should evaluate cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03157713.
Assuntos
Objetivos , Motivação , Adulto , Humanos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Masculino , Obesidade/terapia , Redução de Peso , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Cidade de Nova IorqueRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 forced health systems to rapidly implement telehealth for routine practice, often without sufficient training or standards. We conducted a longitudinal survey of physicians to explore changes in their perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telehealth and identify recommendations for future practice. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was distributed to a cohort of internal medicine physicians in May to June 2020 and March to June 2021. Changes in responses between 2020 and 2021 and by site (private vs. public) were described. These findings, along with those of a thematic analysis of open-ended responses to questions on telehealth experiences, informed a set of recommendations. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 111/391 in 2021 compared to 122/378 in 2020. Fewer physicians reported that telehealth was more difficult than in person with regards to taking a history (49% in 2020, 33% in 2021, p= 0.015), maximizing patient adherence (33% in 2020, 19% in 2021, p = 0.028), and maintaining patient relationships (31%, 25%, p = 0.009) in 2021. Similar proportions of physicians reported continued challenges with building new patient relationships (75%, 77%, p = 0.075), educating patients (40%, 32%, p = 0.393), and working collaboratively with their team (38%, 41%, p = 0.794). Physicians reported increased satisfaction with tele-visits over in-person visits (13%, 27%, p = 0.006) and less worry over doing future tele-visits (45%, 31%, p = 0.027). Physicians' open-ended responses identified recommendations for further improving the design and use of telehealth. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that physician experience with telehealth improved but opportunities for training and improved integration remain. Longitudinal assessment can deepen understanding of the evolution of telehealth care.
RESUMO
Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are well-calibrated to infectiousness and have a critical role to play in the COVID-19 public health response. We report the development and performance of a unique lateral flow immunoassay (LFA). Methods: Combinations of several monoclonal antibodies targeting multiple antigenic sites on the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) were isolated, evaluated, and chosen for the development of a LFA termed CoV-SCAN (BioMedomics, Inc.). Clinical point-of-care studies in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals were conducted to evaluate positive predictive agreement (PPA) and negative predictive agreement (NPA) with RT-PCR as comparator. Results: In laboratory testing, CoV-SCAN detected 14 recombinant N-proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 0.2-3.2 ng/mL, and 10 authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 1.6-12.5 TCID50/swab. No cross reactivity was observed with other human coronaviruses or other respiratory pathogens. In clinical point-of-care testing on 148 individuals over age 2 with symptoms of ≤5 days, PPA was 87.2% (CI 95: 78.3-94.8%) and NPA was 100% (CI 95: 94.2-100%). In another 884 asymptomatic individuals, PPA was 85.7% (CI 95: 42.1-99.6%) and 99.7% (99.0-99.9%). Overall, CoV-SCAN detected over 97.2% of specimens with CT values <30 and 93.8% of nasal swab specimens with the Omicron variant, even within the first 2 days after symptom onset. Conclusions: The unique construction of CoV-SCAN using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has resulted in a test with high performance that remains durable across multiple variants in both laboratory and clinical evaluations. CoV-SCAN should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2. Summary: Unique construction of a point-of-care rapid antigen test using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has led to good performance that remained durable across multiple variants in laboratory and clinical evaluations. Test should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMO
Importance: Accessing specialty care continues to be a persistent problem for patients who use safety-net health systems. To address this access barrier, hospital systems have begun to implement electronic referral systems using eConsults, which allow clinicians to submit referral requests to specialty clinics electronically and enable specialty reviewers to resolve referrals, if appropriate, through electronic dialogue without an in-person visit. Objective: Measure the effect of implementing an eConsult program on access to specialty care. Design Setting and Participants: Using an interrupted time series design with data from 2016 to 2020, this study analyzed 50 260 referral requests submitted during the year before and the year after eConsult implementation at 19 New York City Health + Hospitals (NYC H+H) specialty clinics that spanned 7 NYC H+H hospital facilities and 6 unique specialties. Exposures: Referral request was submitted to a specialty clinic in the year following eConsult implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included the fraction of referral requests resolved without an in-person visit following eConsult implementation; and, among requests triaged to have an in-person visit, the fraction of referrals with a successfully scheduled appointment, mean wait time to a specialty appointment, and the fraction of referral requests with a completed specialty visit. Changes associated with eConsult implementation were estimated using multivariate linear regression adjusting for patient age, gender, and specialty clinic fixed effects. Results: Across 19 NYC H+H specialty clinics, 26 731 referral requests were submitted in the year before and 23 529 referrals were submitted in the year after eConsult implementation. Following eConsult implementation, 13% of all requests were resolved electronically. Among requests requiring a follow-up visit, the fraction with an appointment successfully scheduled increased by 15.8%, from 66.5% to 82.3% (P < .001). The mean time to an appointment decreased from 61.0 days pre-eConsult to 54.1 days post-eConsult, an adjusted 8.2-day shorter wait time (or 13.3% reduction) following eConsult adoption (P < .001). The percentage of referrals with a completed follow-up visit with a specialist within 90 days of the request did not change (38.4% vs 37.9%, P = .07). Changes in outcomes were mitigated during months when most clinics underwent an electronic health record transition after implementing eConsult. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, implementation of eConsults at a large multi-specialty safety-net system was associated with improvements in appointment scheduling rates and wait times. Despite an additional electronic health record transition, eConsults are a promising health care delivery tool for increasing access to specialty care.
Assuntos
Medicina , Consulta Remota , Agendamento de Consultas , Humanos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , EspecializaçãoRESUMO
In early March 2020 an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in New York City exerted sudden and extreme pressures on emergency medical services and quickly changed public health policy and clinical guidance. Recognizing this, New York City Health + Hospitals established a clinician-staffed COVID-19 hotline for all New Yorkers. The hotline underwent three phases as the health crisis evolved. As of May 1, 2020, the hotline had received more than ninety thousand calls and was staffed by more than a thousand unique clinicians. Hotline clinicians provided callers with clinical assessment and guidance, registered them for home symptom monitoring, connected them to social services, and provided a source of up-to-date answers to COVID-19 questions. By connecting New Yorkers with hotline clinicians, regardless of their regular avenues of accessing care, the hotline aimed to ease the pressures on the city's overtaxed emergency medical services. Future consideration should be given to promoting easy access to clinician hotlines by disadvantaged communities early in a public health crisis and to evaluating the impact of clinician hotlines on clinical outcomes.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Linhas Diretas/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Saúde Pública/métodos , COVID-19 , Surtos de Doenças/estatística & dados numéricos , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/organização & administração , Humanos , Incidência , Cidade de Nova Iorque/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Colorectal cancer screening has increased substantially in New York City in recent years. However, screening uptake measured by telephone surveys may not fully capture rates among underserved populations. We measured screening completion within 1 year of a primary care visit among previously unscreened patients in a large urban safety-net hospital and identified sociodemographic and health-related predictors of screening.We identified 21,256 patients ages 50 to 75 who were seen by primary care providers (PCP) in 2014, of whom 14,425 (67.9%) were not up-to-date with screening. Because PCPs facilitate the majority of screening, we compared patients who received screening within 1 year of an initial PCP visit to those who remained unscreened using multivariable logistic regression.Among patients not up-to-date with screening at study outset, 11.5% (1,658 patients) completed screening within 1 year of a PCP visit. Asian race, more PCP visits, and higher area-level income were associated with higher screening completion. Factors associated with remaining unscreened included morbid obesity, ever smoking, Elixhauser comorbidity index of 0, and having Medicaid/Medicare insurance. Age, sex, language, and travel time to the hospital were not associated with screening status. Overall, 39.9% of patients were up-to-date with screening by 2015.In an underserved urban population, colorectal cancer screening disparities remain, and overall screening uptake was low. Because more PCP visits were associated with modestly higher screening completion at 1 year, additional community-level education and outreach may be crucial to increase colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations.
Assuntos
Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Populações Vulneráveis/estatística & dados numéricos , Colonoscopia/psicologia , Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Colorretais/psicologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/psicologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Medicare , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Populações Vulneráveis/psicologiaRESUMO
Confronted with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, New York City Health + Hospitals, the city's public health care system, rapidly expanded capacity across its eleven acute care hospitals and three new field hospitals. To meet the unprecedented demand for patient care, NYC Health + Hospitals redeployed staff to the areas of greatest need and redesigned recruiting, onboarding, and training processes. The hospital system engaged private staffing agencies, partnered with the Department of Defense, and recruited volunteers throughout the country. A centralized onboarding team created a single-source portal for medical care providers requiring credentialing and established new staff positions to increase efficiency. Using new educational tools focused on COVID-19 content, the hospital system trained twenty thousand staff members, including nearly nine thousand nurses, within a two-month period. Creation of multidisciplinary teams, frequent enterprisewide communication, willingness to shift direction in response to changing needs, and innovative use of technology were the key factors that enabled the hospital system to meet its goals.
Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/organização & administração , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Hospitais Públicos/provisão & distribuição , Corpo Clínico Hospitalar/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Recursos Humanos/estatística & dados numéricos , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Surtos de Doenças/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Masculino , Cidade de Nova Iorque , Inovação Organizacional , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Estoque Estratégico/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
New York City Health + Hospitals is the largest safety-net health care delivery system in the United States. Before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, NYC Health + Hospitals served more than one million patients annually, including the most vulnerable New Yorkers, while billing fewer than five hundred telehealth visits monthly. Once the pandemic struck, we established a strategy to allow us to continue to serve our existing patients while treating the surge of new patients. Starting in March 2020, we were able to transform the system using virtual care platforms through which we conducted almost eighty-three thousand billable televisits in one month, as well as more than thirty thousand behavioral health encounters via telephone and video. Telehealth also enabled us to support patient-family communication, postdischarge follow-up, and palliative care for patients with COVID-19. Expanded Medicaid coverage and insurance reimbursement for telehealth played a pivotal role in this transformation. As we move to a new blend of virtual and in-person care, it is vital that the major regulatory and insurance changes undergirding our COVID-19 telehealth response be sustained to protect access for our most vulnerable patients.
Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/organização & administração , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Pandemias/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/organização & administração , Telemedicina/organização & administração , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Masculino , Cidade de Nova Iorque , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controleRESUMO
Objectives While the need to address patients' social determinants of health (SDoH) is widely recognized, less is known about physicians' actual clinical problem-solving when it comes to SDoH. Do physicians include SDoH in their assessment strategy? Are SDoH incorporated into their diagnostic thinking and if so, do they document as part of their clinical reasoning? And do physicians directly address SDoH in their "solution" (treatment plan)? Methods We used Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) to assess internal medicine residents' clinical problem solving in response to a patient with asthma exacerbation and concern that her moldy apartment is contributing to symptoms - a case designed to represent a clear and direct link between a social determinant and patient health. Residents' clinical practices were assessed through a post-visit checklist and systematic chart review. Patterns of clinical problem solving were identified and then explored, in depth, through review of USP comments and history of present illness (HPI) and treatment plan documentation. Results Residents fell into three groups when it came to clinical problem-solving around a housing trigger for asthma: those who failed to ask about housing and therefore did not uncover mold as a potential trigger (neglectors 21%; 14/68); those who asked about housing in negative ways that prevented disclosure and response (negative elicitors 23%, 16/68); and those who elicited and explored the mold issue (full elicitors 56%; 38/68) [corrected]. Of the full elicitors 53% took no further action, 26% only documented the mold; and 21% provided resources/referral. In-depth review of USP comments/explanations and residents' notes (HPI, treatment plan) revealed possible influences on clinical problem solving. Failure to ask about housing was associated with both contextual factors (rushed visit) and interpersonal skills (not fully engaging with patient) and with possible differences in attention ("known" vs. unknown/new triggers, usual symptoms vs. changes, not attending to relocation, etc.,). Use of close-ended questions often made it difficult for the patient to share mold concerns. Negative responses to sharing of housing information led to missing mold entirely or to the patient not realizing that the physician agreed with her concerns about mold. Residents who fully elicited the mold situation but did not take action seemed to either lack knowledge or feel that action on SDoH was outside their realm of responsibility. Those that took direct action to help the patient address mold appeared to be motivated by an enhanced sense of urgency. Conclusions Findings provide unique insight into residents' problem solving processes including external influences (e.g., time, distractions), the role of core communication and interpersonal skills (eliciting information, creating opportunities for patients to voice concerns, sharing clinical thinking with patients), how traditional cognitive biases operate in practice (premature closure, tunneling, and ascertainment bias), and the ways in which beliefs about expectancies and scope of practice may color clinical problem-solving strategies for addressing SDoH.