Impact of Longitudinal Virtual Primary Care on Diabetes Quality of Care

Evaluating the Impact of Telemedicine on Diabetes Management in Rural Communities: A Systematic Review

Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare services using information and communication technologies to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, transforming how healthcare is delivered, especially in remote and underserved areas. Despite its potential, no systematic reviews have been conducted in the last five years to assess the effectiveness of telemedicine for managing diabetes in rural populations. This review addresses this gap by evaluating studies on telemedicine's impact on glycemic control among diabetic patients in these settings. We searched five databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect, and Science.gov, covering studies published in the last five years. Of the 331 articles identified, 10 met our inclusion criteria: English-language studies from the past five years involving adults in rural areas or comparing rural and urban settings, focusing on telemedicine's impact on glycemic control in diabetic patients. In many studies, the findings revealed that telemedicine interventions integrated into structured programs significantly improved HbA1c levels. Successful implementation requires local infrastructure and consistent patient-provider interactions, although increased healthcare provider workloads may affect sustainability. Telemedicine alone was less effective for patients with complex comorbidities, suggesting that a combined approach with in-person visits may be more effective. This review highlights telemedicine's potential to replace routine in-person visits for diabetes management in rural areas, demonstrating significant improvements in HbA1c levels, medication adherence, and timely care management support. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials in rural settings, hybrid care models that optimize in-person visit frequency and remote monitoring, and addressing technological challenges such as broadband access and platform usability to ensure sustainable telehealth interventions.

Understanding How Contingency Staffing Programs Can Support Mental Health Services in the Veterans Health Administration

Introduction: Beginning in 2019, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prioritized improving access to care nationally to deliver virtual care and implemented 18 regionally based Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) to meet this priority. This observational study describes the quantity and types of care delivered by CRH Mental Health teams, and the professions of those hired to deliver it. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, based on national VA CRH mental health care utilization data and CRH staffing data for CRH's first 3 years, was conducted. Results: CRH Mental Health teams primarily used Telemental Health (TMH) to provide care (98.1% of all CRH MH encounters). The most common disorders treated included depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorders. The amount of care delivered overtime steadily increased as did the racial and ethnic diversity of Veterans served. Psychologists accounted for the largest share of CRH staffing, followed by psychiatrists. Conclusions: CRH TMH delivered from a regional hub appears to be a feasible and acceptable visit modality, based on the continuously increasing CRH TMH visit rates. Our results showed that CRH TMH was predominantly used to address common mental health diagnoses, rather than serious mental illnesses. Traditionally marginalized patient populations increased over the 3-year window, suggesting that CRH TMH resources were accessible to many of these patients. Future research should assess barriers and facilitators for accessing CRH TMH, especially for difficult-to-service patient populations, and should consider whether similar results to ours occur when regional TMH is delivered to non-VA patient populations.

"Technology has allowed us to do a lot more but it's not necessarily the panacea for everybody": Family physician perspectives on virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward.

CONCLUSIONS

The move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams.

METHODS

The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners.

DISCUSSION

Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

Telemedicine and health disparities: Association between the area deprivation index and primary care telemedicine utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The rapid implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated the existing health disparities. This study investigated the association between the area deprivation index (ADI), which serves as a measure of socioeconomic deprivation within a geographic area, and the utilization of telemedicine in primary care.

Methods

The study data source was electronic health records. The study population consisted of patients with at least one primary care visit between March 2020 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the visit modality (office, phone, and video). The exposure of interest was the ADI score grouped into quartiles (one to four, with one being the least deprived). The confounders included patient sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance coverage, marital status). We utilized generalized estimating equations to compare the utilization of telemedicine visits with office visits, as well as phone visits with video visits.

Results

The study population included 41,583 patients with 127,165 office visits, 39,484 phone visits, and 20,268 video visits. Compared to patients in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI quartile = one), patients in more disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI = two, three, or four) had higher odds of using phone visits vs office visits, lower odds of using video visits vs office visits, and higher odds of using phone visits vs video visits.

Conclusions

Patients who resided in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods mainly relied on phone consultations for telemedicine visits with their primary care provider. Patient-level interventions are essential for achieving equitable access to digital healthcare, particularly for low-income individuals.

Rural and urban differences in the implementation of Virtual Integrated Patient-Aligned Care Teams

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages contribute to geographic disparities in accessing primary care services. An innovative, clinic-to-clinic videoconferencing telehealth program in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) called the Virtual Integrated Patient-Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) was designed to increase veterans' access to primary care and relieve workforce shortages in VA primary care clinics, including in many rural areas. This paper describes trends in clinic sites and veteran uptake of the V-IMPACT program, a model that delivered remote, team-based primary care services, from fiscal years (FY)2013-2018.

METHODS

This observational study used VHA administrative data to compare program uptake, measured by the program penetration rate (percent of patients using V-IMPACT services in each site) across sites; and characteristics for V-IMPACT users versus nonusers for 2,155,203 veteran-years in 69 sites across 7 regional networks for FY2013-2018. Regression models assessed the association between V-IMPACT use and veteran characteristics within sites.

FINDINGS

Across sites, V-IMPACT had higher penetration in rural sites (8%) and primary care community-based outpatient clinics (7%, P<.001). After adjusting for veteran characteristics, rural veterans (aOR = 1.05; P = .02) and veterans with higher comorbidity risk scores (aOR = 1.08; P<.001) were independently associated with V-IMPACT use. Highly rural veterans (OR = 0.60; P<.001) and veterans who lived ≥40 miles from the closest VHA primary care site (OR = 0.86; P<.001) were less likely to be a V-IMPACT user.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinic-to-clinic telehealth program, such as V-IMPACT, was able to reach many rural sites, rural veterans, and veterans in primary care health professional shortage areas. V-IMPACT has the potential to increase access to team-based primary care.

Rapid Evaluations of Telehealth Strategies to Address Hypertension: A Mixed-Methods Exploration at Two US Health Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Telehealth is a promising intervention for hypertension management and control and was rapidly adopted by health systems to ensure continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid evaluations of telehealth strategies at 2 US health systems explored how telehealth affected health care access and blood pressure outcomes among populations disproportionately affected by hypertension. Both health systems implemented telehealth strategies to maintain continuity of health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluations used a mixed-method approach; qualitative interviews were conducted with key staff, and quantitative analyses were performed on patient electronic health record data. Both health systems exhibited similar trends in telehealth use, which allowed for continued access to health care for some patients but hindered other patients who had limited access to the internet or the equipment needed. Telehealth provides opportunities for blood pressure control and management. Further evaluation is needed to understand the role of broadband internet access as a social determinant of health and its impact on equitable patient access to health care.

Quality and team care response to the pandemic stresses in high performing primary care practices: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To learn how high performing primary care practices organized care for patients with diabetes during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 10 and December 10, 2020 with 16 leaders from 11 practices that had top quartile performance measures for diabetes outcomes pre-COVID. Each clinic had completed a similar interview and a survey about the existence of care management systems associated with quality outcomes before the pandemic. Transcript analysis utilized a theoretical thematic analysis at the semantic level.

RESULTS

The pandemic disrupted the primary care practices' operations and processes considered important for quality prior to the pandemic, particularly clinic reliance on proactive patient care. Safety concerns resulted from the shift to virtual visits, which produced documentation gaps and led practices to reorder their use of proactive patient care processes. Informal interactions with patients also declined. These practices' challenges were mitigated by technical, informational and operational help from the larger organizations of which they were a part. Care management processes had to accommodate both in-person and virtual visits.

CONCLUSION

These high performing practices demonstrated an ability to adapt their use of proactive patient care processes in pursuing quality outcomes for patients with diabetes during the pandemic. Continued clinic transformation and improvements in quality within primary care depend on the ability to restructure the responsibilities of care team members and their interactions with patients.

Telehealth for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Extensive literature support telehealth as a supplement or adjunct to in-person care for the management of chronic conditions such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Evidence is needed to support the use of telehealth as an equivalent and equitable replacement for in-person care and to assess potential adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to address the following question: among adults, what is the effect of synchronous telehealth (real-time response among individuals via phone or phone and video) compared with in-person care (or compared with phone, if synchronous video care) for chronic management of CHF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and T2DM on key disease-specific clinical outcomes and health care use?

METHODS

We followed systematic review methodologies and searched two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We included randomized or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of synchronously delivered telehealth for relevant chronic conditions that occurred over ≥2 encounters and in which some or all in-person care was supplanted by care delivered via phone or video. We assessed the bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias (ROB) tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We described the findings narratively and did not conduct meta-analysis owing to the small number of studies and the conceptual heterogeneity of the identified interventions.

RESULTS

We identified 8662 studies, and 129 (1.49%) were reviewed at the full-text stage. In total, 3.9% (5/129) of the articles were retained for data extraction, all of which (5/5, 100%) were randomized controlled trials. The CHF study (1/5, 20%) was found to have high ROB and randomized patients (n=210) to receive quarterly automated asynchronous web-based review and follow-up of telemetry data versus synchronous personal follow-up (in-person vs phone-based) for 1 year. A 3-way comparison across study arms found no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Overall, 80% (4/5) of the studies (n=466) evaluated synchronous care for patients with T2DM (ROB was judged to be low for 2, 50% of studies and high for 2, 50% of studies). In total, 20% (1/5) of the studies were adequately powered to assess the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin level between groups; however, no significant difference was found. Intervention design varied greatly from remote monitoring of blood glucose combined with video versus in-person visits to an endocrinology clinic to a brief, 3-week remote intervention to stabilize uncontrolled diabetes. No articles were identified for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found few studies with a variety of designs and interventions that used telehealth as a replacement for in-person care. Future research should consider including observational studies and studies on additional highly prevalent chronic diseases.

Clinical appropriateness of telehealth: a qualitative study of endocrinologists’ perspectives

Background

Outpatient endocrinology care delivered by telehealth is likely to remain common post-pandemic. There is little data to guide endocrinologists’ judgments of clinical appropriateness (safety and effectiveness) for telehealth by synchronous video. We examined how, in the absence of guidelines, endocrinologists determine clinical appropriateness for telehealth, and we identified their strategies to navigate barriers to safe and effective use.

Methods

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 26 purposively selected US endocrinologists. We used a directed content analysis to characterize participant perceptions of which patients and situations were clinically appropriate for telehealth, and to identify adaptations they made to accommodate telehealth visits.

Results

Endocrinologists’ perspectives about appropriateness for telehealth were influenced by clinical considerations, non-clinical patient factors, and the type and timing of the visit. These factors were weighed differently across individual participants according to their risk tolerance, values related to the physical exam and patient relationships, and impressions of patient capabilities and preferences. Some participants made practice adaptations that increased their comfort offering telehealth to a wider swath of patients.

Conclusions

Endocrinologists’ judgments about clinical appropriateness of telehealth for different patient situations varied widely across participants. The risk of such divergent approaches to determining appropriateness is unintended and clinically unwarranted variation in use of telehealth, compromising quality of care. Expert consensus is needed to guide endocrinologists now, along with studies to anchor future evidence-based guidelines for determining clinical appropriateness of telehealth in endocrinology.

Survey of cancer screening practices and telehealth services among primary care physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid implementation of telehealth within primary care impacting cancer screening. We sought to assess the impact of increased telehealth use on physician recommendation for cancer screenings during the COVID-19 pandemic in North America. Primary care physicians (n = 757) were surveyed in Fall 2020 through the Council of Academic Family Medicine's Educational Research Alliance (CERA) general membership survey. Respondents were asked about cancer screening practices and telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chi-squared tests were performed to assess relationships between cancer screening practices and changes in care necessitated by the shift to telehealth services. Associations between participant responses and those reporting a diminished patient-provider relationship were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. A substantial proportion of respondents reported postponing screening for breast (34.5%), colon (32.9%), and cervical cancer (31%), and a majority (51.1%) agreed changes in care seeking will lead to increased incidence of late stage cancer. Physicians reported high use of telehealth during the pandemic, but endorsed limitations in its use to maintain cancer screening practices and the patient-provider relationship. Physicians who reported patients were afraid to come into the office were more likely to report an impaired patient-provider relationship (OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.33 - 7.87). Physicians who reported that telehealth maintains their patient-provider relationship were less likely to report an impaired patient-provider relationship (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17 - 0.67). As telehealth becomes increasingly prominent, evaluation of the impact of telehealth on cancer screening and patient-provider relationships will be increasingly important for primary care.

The Impact of Telemedicine on Quality of Care for Patients with Diabetes After March 2020

BACKGROUND

The impact of telemedicine on ambulatory care quality is a key question for policymakers as they navigate payment reform for remote care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether utilizing telemedicine in the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted performance on a diabetes quality of care measure for patients at a large academic medical center. We hypothesized care quality would reduce less among telemedicine users.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental design using binomial logistic regression. Covariates included age, gender, race, ethnicity, type of insurance, hierarchical condition category score, primary language at the individual level, and zip code-level income.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients younger than 75 years of age diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (N = 16,588) as of 3/19/2020 at a single academic health center.

INTERVENTIONS

Completion of one or more telemedicine encounters with an institutional primary care physician or endocrinologist between 3/19/2020 and 12/19/2020.

MAIN MEASURES

The components met in a five-item composite measure of diabetes quality of care, as of patients' last clinical encounter. Items were (1) systolic blood pressure less than 140 mmHg, (2) hemoglobin A1c less than 8.0%, (3) using a statin and (4) aspirin, and (5) tobacco non-use.

KEY RESULTS

From the pre- to post-period, the probability of meeting any given component of the composite measure for patients only utilizing in-person care was 21% lower (OR, 95% CI 0.79; 0.76, 0.81) and for the telemedicine users 2% lower (OR 0.98; 0.85, 1.13). There was an increased likelihood of meeting any given component among telemedicine users compared to in-person care alone (OR 1.25; 1.08, 1.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes utilizing telemedicine performed similarly on a composite measure of diabetes care quality compared to before the pandemic. Those not utilizing telemedicine had reductions. Telemedicine use maintained quality of care for patients with diabetes during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Experiences of Hispanic Safety Net Clinic Patients With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to characterize the material, health (general and diabetes-specific), and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hispanic adults with type 2 diabetes who did not experience COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

This cross-sectional and longitudinal study used surveys within a clinical trial of 79 Hispanic adult clinic patients with type 2 diabetes. Cross-sectional measures included the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale, items from the Coronavirus Impact Scale, and the Pandemic Impacts Inventory. Longitudinal measures included the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care, health care utilization, and measures of diabetes self-efficacy, social support, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Participants were majority low-income, Spanish-speaking females with poor diabetes control. Coronavirus anxiety was low despite majority of participants having an affected family member and frequent access barriers. More than half of participants reported moderate/severe pandemic impact on their income. Diabetes self-care behaviors did not change between prepandemic and pandemic measures. Diabetes self-efficacy and quality of life improved despite fewer diabetes-related health care visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high levels of access barriers, financial strain, and COVID-19 infection of family members, Hispanic adults with type 2 diabetes continued to prioritize their diabetes self-management and demonstrated substantial resilience by improving their self-efficacy and quality of life.

Health System Resiliency and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of a New Nationwide Contingency Staffing Program

When COVID-19 emerged, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) was in the process of implementing a national contingency staffing program called Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs). CRHs were intended to provide regional contingency staffing for primary and mental health clinics experiencing staffing shortages primarily through telehealth. Long-term plans (year 2) included emergency management support. Early in the implementation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with CRH directors and national program leaders (n = 26) and used a rapid analysis approach to identify actions taken by CRHs to support the resiliency of the VA healthcare system during the pandemic. We found that the CRH program was flexible and nimble enough to allow VA to leverage providers at hubs to better respond to the demands of COVID-19. Actions taken at hubs to sustain patient access and staff resiliency during the pandemic included supporting call centers and training VA providers on virtual care delivery. Factors that facilitated CRH’s emergency response included hub staff expertise in telehealth and the increased acceptability of virtual care among key stakeholders. We conclude that hub providers serving as contingency staff, as well as specialization in delivering virtual outpatient and inpatient care, enabled VA health system resiliency and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I was Unsure at First”: A Qualitative Evaluation of Patient Perceptions of VA Clinical Video Telehealth Visits in the V-IMPACT Program

Virtual Integrated Multi-Site Patient Aligned Care Team (V-IMPACT) was a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiative created to increase access to primary care for Veterans through Clinical Video Telehealth (CVT) appointments. Between January and August 2019, we conducted 48 semi-structured qualitative interviews with Veterans who had a V-IMPACT appointment. Many participants shared feelings of skepticism before their first appointments but for some, their opinions changed. Veterans talked about how their opinion of video care changed for the better when it made care more convenient or timelier or met their health care needs. For some Veterans, their opinion about video care stayed the same or worsened because they had a poor relationship or rapport with their provider, did not feel like they received needed care, or did not feel like video care was useful. These findings offer an opportunity for telecare providers to better understand and support patients and to deliver effective care in the context of rapidly growing telehealth modalities.

A Primary Care Telehealth Pilot Program to Improve Access: Associations with Patients' Health Care Utilization and Costs

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an innovative video telehealth program called Virtual Integrated Multisite Patient Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) in fiscal year (FY) 2014. V-IMPACT set up one regional "hub" site where primary care (PC) teams provided regular PC through telehealth services to patients in outlying "spoke" sites that experienced gaps in provider coverage. We evaluated associations between clinic-level adoption of V-IMPACT and patients' utilization and VHA's costs for primary, emergency, and inpatient care. Materials and Methods: This observational study used repeated cross-sections of 208,612 unique veteran patients assigned to a PC team in 22 V-IMPACT spoke sites from FY2013 to FY2018. V-IMPACT adoption in a spoke site was indicated if more than 1% of patients assigned to PC in a site used V-IMPACT services during the year. Association between V-IMPACT adoption and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects models. Results: V-IMPACT adoption was associated with increased telehealth visits for PC (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.42 [1.29 to 4.55]) and for primary care mental health integration (IRR = 7.25 [2.69 to 19.54]). V-IMPACT adoption was not associated with in-person visits, or with total visits (in-person plus video telehealth). V-IMPACT adoption was also not associated with acute hospital stays, emergency department visits, or VHA costs. Conclusions: Programs such as VHA's V-IMPACT can increase telehealth visits for PC, allowing successful transition across modalities and facilitating continuity of care without impacting total care. Programs should track substitution of in-person visits with telehealth visits and examine its effects on patients' health outcomes, satisfaction, and travel costs.