Patient and surgeon experiences with video visits in plastic surgery-toward a data-informed scheduling triage tool

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study's objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review.

RESULTS

After removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues.

CONCLUSION

This review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals' perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.

Efficacy of virtual plastic surgery encounters in establishment of care and surgical conversion

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of virtual visits in converting new patients into established patients undergoing surgical treatment has not been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient retention and surgical conversion rate after an initial virtual plastic surgery consultation.

METHODS

An IRB-approved retrospective review of all new plastic surgery patients seen between May and August 2020 at a single institution was conducted. The initial encounter type, chief complaint, demographics, treatment recommendation, insurance approval rate, number and modality of pre- and postoperative visits, time to procedure, follow up, and complications were recorded. Patient retention and surgery conversion rate were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and unpaired t-test.

RESULTS

In total, the records of 1889 new patients were reviewed (1635 in-person, 254 virtual). Virtual patients were younger (44.5 ± 19.0 versus 49.5 ± 20.7 years, p < 0.001), and nearly half resided greater than 50 miles away (42% versus 16%, p < 0.001). Virtual patients more frequently presented for cosmetic surgery (14% versus 7%, p < 0.001), lymphedema (15% versus 3%, p < 0.001), and gender dysphoria (11% versus 2%, p < 0.001). In-person patients presented more often for trauma (18% versus 5%, p < 0.001), elective hand complaints (16% versus 3%, p < 0.001), and breast reconstruction (9% versus 4%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in patient retention (p = 0.45) and procedure conversion rate (p = 0.21) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine provides an opportunity to increase the practice catchment area and is as effective as in-person first encounters for establishing care and transition to surgery.

A Nurse-Led Care Delivery App and Telehealth System for Patients Requiring Wound Care: Mixed Methods Implementation and Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND

Innovative solutions to nursing care are needed to address nurse, health system, patient, and caregiver concerns related to nursing wellness, work flexibility and control, workforce retention and pipeline, and access to patient care. One innovative approach includes a novel health care delivery model enabling nurse-led, off-hours wound care (PocketRN) to triage emergent concerns and provide additional patient health education via telehealth.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aimed to evaluate the implementation of PocketRN from the perspective of nurses and patients.

METHODS

Patients and part-time or per-diem, wound care-certified and generalist nurses were recruited through the Stanford Medicine Advanced Wound Care Center in 2021 and 2022. Qualitative data included semistructured interviews with nurses and patients and clinical documentation review. Quantitative data included app use and brief end-of-interaction in-app satisfaction surveys.

RESULTS

This pilot study suggests that an app-based nursing care delivery model is acceptable, clinically appropriate, and feasible. Low technology literacy had a modest effect on initial patient adoption; this barrier was addressed with built-in outreach and by simplifying the patient experience (eg, via phone instead of video calls). This approach was acceptable for users, despite total patient enrollment and use numbers being lower than anticipated (N=49; 17/49, 35% of patients used the app at least once beyond the orientation call). We interviewed 10 patients: 7 who had used the app were satisfied with it and reported that real-time advice after hours reduced anxiety, and 3 who had not used the app after enrollment reported having other resources for health care advice and noted their perception that this tool was meant for urgent issues, which did not occur for them. Interviewed nurses (n=10) appreciated working from home, and they reported comfort with the scope of practice and added quality of care facilitated by video capabilities; there was interest in additional wound care-specific training for nonspecialized nurses. Nurses were able to provide direct patient care over the web, including the few participating nurses who were unable to perform in-person care (n=2).

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation provides insights into the integration of technology into standard health care services, such as in-clinic wound care. Using in-system nurses with access to electronic medical records and specialized knowledge facilitated app integration and continuity of care. This care delivery model satisfied nurse desires for flexible and remote work and reduced patient anxiety, potentially reducing postoperative wound care complications. Feasibility was negatively impacted by patients' technology literacy and few language options; additional patient training, education, and language support are needed to support equitable access. Adoption was impacted by a lack of perceived need for additional care; lower-touch or higher-acuity settings with a longer wait between visits could be a better fit for this type of nurse-led care.

Evaluating clinician‐led quality improvement initiatives: A system‐wide embedded research partnership at Stanford Medicine

Introduction

Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician‐led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in‐house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician‐led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences.

Aim

To describe the ICDP‐ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021.

Methods

Department‐level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high‐level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in‐depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals.

Results

Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID‐19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system‐wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi‐year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access.

Conclusion

Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise‐wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross‐cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.