Patient Adherence to Hemoglobin A1c Testing Recommendations in Telemedicine and In-Office Cohorts During COVID-19

The Impact of Telemedicine on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Related Clinical Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated barriers to care for people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). The quick uptake of telemedicine in the outpatient setting provided promise for care continuity. In this study, we compared appointment and laboratory no-show rates in an urban outpatient HIV clinic during three time periods: (1) Pre-COVID-19: 9/15/2019-3/14/2020 (predominately in-person), (2) "Early" COVID-19: 3/15/2020-9/14/2020 (predominately telemedicine), and (3) "Later" COVID-19: 9/15/2020-3/14/2021 (mixed in-person/telemedicine). Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the two study hypotheses: (i) equivalence of Period 2 with Period 1 and of Period 3 with Period 1 and (ii) improved outcomes with telemedicine over in-person visits. No-show rates were 1% in Period 1, 4% in Period 2, and 18% in Period 3. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, individuals had a higher rate of appointment no-shows during Period 2 [OR (90% CI): 7.67 (2.68, 21.93)] and 3 [OR (90% CI): 30.91 (12.83 to 75.06). During the total study period, those with telemedicine appointments were less likely to no-show than those with in-person appointments [OR (95% CI): 0.36 (0.16-0.80), p = 0.012]. There was no statistical difference between telemedicine and in-person appointments for laboratory completion rates. Our study failed to prove that no-show rates before and during the pandemic were similar; in fact, no-show rates were higher during both the early and later pandemic. Overall, telemedicine was associated with lower no-show rates compared to in-person appointments. In future pandemics, telemedicine may be a valuable component to maintain care in PLWH.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits

Importance

Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality.

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated.

Main Measures

Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests.

Results

The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64).

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

Comparison of Quality Performance Measures for Patients Receiving In-Person vs Telemedicine Primary Care in a Large Integrated Health System

IMPORTANCE

Despite its rapid adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unknown how telemedicine augmentation of in-person office visits has affected quality of patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether quality of care among patients exposed to telemedicine differs from patients with only in-person office-based care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cohort study, standardized quality measures were compared between patients with office-only (in-person) visits vs telemedicine visits from March 1, 2020, to November 30, 2021, across more than 200 outpatient care sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

EXPOSURES

Patients completing telemedicine (video) visits.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

χ2 tests determined statistically significant differences in Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality performance measures between office-only and telemedicine-exposed groups. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities.

RESULTS

The study included 526 874 patients (409 732 office-only; 117 142 telemedicine exposed) with a comparable distribution of sex (196 285 [49.7%] and 74 878 [63.9%] women), predominance of non-Hispanic (348 127 [85.0%] and 105 408 [90.0%]) and White individuals (334 215 [81.6%] and 100 586 [85.9%]), aged 18 to 65 years (239 938 [58.6%] and 91 100 [77.8%]), with low overall health risk scores (373 176 [91.1%] and 100 076 [85.4%]) and commercial (227 259 [55.5%] and 81 552 [69.6%]) or Medicare or Medicaid (176 671 [43.1%] and 52 513 [44.8%]) insurance. For medication-based measures, patients with office-only visits had better performance, but only 3 of 5 measures had significant differences: patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) receiving antiplatelets (absolute percentage difference [APD], 6.71%; 95% CI, 5.45%-7.98%; P < .001), patients with CVD receiving statins (APD, 1.79%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.71%; P = .001), and avoiding antibiotics for patients with upper respiratory infections (APD, 2.05%; 95% CI, 1.17%-2.96%; P < .001); there were insignificant differences for patients with heart failure receiving β-blockers and those with diabetes receiving statins. For all 4 testing-based measures, patients with telemedicine exposure had significantly better performance differences: patients with CVD with lipid panels (APD, 7.04%; 95% CI, 5.95%-8.10%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with hemoglobin A1c testing (APD, 5.14%; 95% CI, 4.25%-6.01%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with nephropathy testing (APD, 9.28%; 95% CI, 8.22%-10.32%; P < .001), and blood pressure control (APD, 3.55%; 95% CI, 3.25%-3.85%; P < .001); this was also true for all 7 counseling-based measures: cervical cancer screening (APD, 12.33%; 95% CI, 11.80%-12.85%; P < .001), breast cancer screening (APD, 16.90%; 95% CI, 16.07%-17.71%; P < .001), colon cancer screening (APD, 8.20%; 95% CI, 7.65%-8.75%; P < .001), tobacco counseling and intervention (APD, 12.67%; 95% CI, 11.84%-13.50%; P < .001), influenza vaccination (APD, 9.76%; 95% CI, 9.47%-10.05%; P < .001), pneumococcal vaccination (APD, 5.41%; 95% CI, 4.85%-6.00%; P < .001), and depression screening (APD, 4.85%; 95% CI, 4.66%-5.04%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients with telemedicine exposure, there was a largely favorable association with quality of primary care. This supports telemedicine's value potential for augmenting care capacity, especially in chronic disease management and preventive care. This study also identifies a need for understanding relationships between the optimal blend of telemedicine and in-office care.

Exploring the role of telehealth in providing equitable healthcare to the vulnerable patient population during COVID-19

The COVID 19 pandemic resulted in widespread telehealth implementation. Existent health disparities were widened, with under-represented minorities (URM) disproportionately affected by COVID. In this study, we assess the role of telehealth in improving access to care in the URMs and vulnerable populations. We noted a statistically significant increase in the number of visits in Hispanic or Latino patients (15.2% increase, p < 0.01) and Black patients (19% increase, p < 0.01). Based on payer type, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of visits in the Medicare (10.2%, p = 0.0001) and Medicaid (16.2%, p < 0.01) groups. We also noted increased access to care with telehealth in patients who were 65 and older (10.6%, p = 0.004). This highlights the importance of telehealth in increasing access to care and promoting health equity in the URM and vulnerable patient populations.

Comparable quality performance between telemedicine and office‐based care for abnormal BMI screening and management

Background

Despite widespread adoption during COVID-19, there is limited evidence supporting the quality of telemedicine care in managing patients with abnormal BMI.

Objective

To evaluate the comparability of telemedicine and in-person (office) quality performance for abnormal body mass index (BMI kg/m2) screening and management in primary care.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study measured Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality performance for abnormal BMI screening (patients with BMIs <18.5 or >25 kg/m2 and a qualifying documented follow up plan) across an 8-hospital integrated health system seen via primary care from 4/1/20 - 9/30/21. Encounters were divided into three exposure groups: office (excluding telemedicine), telemedicine (excluding office), and blended telemedicine (office + telemedicine). Demographic stratification compared group composition. Chi squared tests determined statistical differences in quality performance (p = <0.05).

Results

Demographics of sub-groups for the 287,387 patients (office: 222,333; telemedicine: 1,556; blended-telemedicine: 63,489) revealed a modest female predominance, majority ages 26-70, mostly White non-Hispanics of low health risk, and the majority BMI representation was overweight, followed closely by class 1 obesity. In both HEDIS specified and HEDIS modified performance, blended-telemedicine performed better than office (12.56%, 95% CI 12.29%-13.01%; 11.16%, 95% CI: 10.85%-11.48%; p < 0.0001); office performed better than telemedicine (4.29%, 95% CI 2.84%-5.54%; 4.79%, 95% CI 3.99%-5.35%; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Quality performance was highest for blended-telemedicine, followed by office-only, then telemedicine-only. Given the known cost savings, adding telemedicine as a care venue might promote value within health systems without negatively impacting HEDIS performance.

Comparable Quality Performance of Acute Low-Back Pain Care in Telemedicine and Office-Based Cohorts

Introduction: Back pain is among the most common presentations in primary care offices. National organizations have standardized the appropriate use of imaging for acute low-back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of imaging in LBP between telemedicine and in-person clinical encounters. Methods: This retrospective cohort compared secondary data from 20,624 telemedicine and office encounters in a large nonprofit health system from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021. The proportion of patients aged 18-50 years who did not receive imaging for acute LBP (X-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) within 28 days of the provider encounter was measured according to Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set specifications. Performance was compared across race, ethnicity, age, body mass index, overall risk score, and insurance type. Chi-squared tests determined significant differences between cohorts (p < 0.05). Results: Patients seen via telemedicine had significantly lower rates of imaging within 28 days of their physician encounter (office: 16.32%, telemedicine: 11.20%; difference: 5.12%; p < 0.01). This was consistent across racial, ethnic, and risk score subgroups. Discussion: For practices and health systems, telemedicine might be a higher value approach for initial evaluation of acute LBP in primary care. For policy makers, telemedicine can save on health care costs without negatively impacting quality performance measures. Conclusions: Telemedicine is unlikely to compromise quality of acute LBP care, supporting this virtual space as an alternative care venue. The most beneficial use of telemedicine might be triaging initial encounters of acute LBP in primary care. Stronger evidence could support its long-term potential for driving value through cost savings.