Frequency and Type of Outpatient Visits for Patients With Cardiovascular Ambulatory-Care Sensitive Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Subsequent Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Downstream Emergency Department and Hospital Utilization Comparably Low Following In-Person Versus Telemedicine Primary Care for High-Risk Conditions

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine use expanded greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic. More data is needed to understand how this shift may impact other venues of acute care delivery.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluate the association of visit modality (telephone, video, or office) and downstream emergency department (ED) and hospital visits among primary care visits for acute, time-sensitive conditions.

DESIGN

Observational study of patient-scheduled primary care telemedicine and office visits for acute conditions (cardiac, gastrointestinal, neurologic, musculoskeletal, and head and neck) in a large, integrated healthcare delivery system.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a new self-booked primary care appointment for an eligible acute condition from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022 (with no primary care, ED, or hospital visits in prior 30 days).

INTERVENTIONS

Visit modality, including office, video, or telephone.

MAIN MEASURES

Seven-day ED and hospital utilization, adjusted for patient and visit characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

Among 258,958 primary care visits by 239,240 adult patients, 57.7% were telemedicine visits; of these, 72.4% were telephone and 27.6% were video. Telephone visits were the timeliest, with over 70% of visits scheduled within 1 day of booking. Rates of 7-day ED utilization were low, and varied by condition group, with cardiac visits having the highest rates (4.8%) and musculoskeletal visits having the lowest (0.8%). There was less than a 1% absolute difference in ED use by visit modality for all condition types; however, telephone visits were associated with slightly higher rates than video visits. The 7-day hospitalization rate was less than 1% and observed between visit type differences varied by clinical condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Among office, telephone, and video visits in primary care for potentially high-risk, time-sensitive conditions, downstream ED and hospital use were uncommon. ED utilization was lower for video visits than telephone visits, although telephone visits were timelier and may offer a safe and accessible option for acute care.

Outpatient Health Service Utilization Among Adults with Diabetes, Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Results of Population-Based Surveys in Germany from 2019 to 2021

Purpose

Fear of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and lockdown measures may have an impact on health care utilization particularly for people with chronic diseases. We investigated changes in outpatient utilization behavior in pandemic phases among people with selected chronic diseases in Germany.

Methods

The nationwide population-based telephone surveys German Health Update (GEDA) 2019/2020 (April 2019 to September 2020) and GEDA 2021 (July to December 2021) covered 4 out of 7 pandemic phases from the pre-pandemic to the 4th pandemic wave. Data on hypertension, diabetes and major cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in the past 12 months and visiting a general practitioner (GP) or a specialist (excluding dentist) in the past 4 weeks was collected using a standardized questionnaire. Proportions and odds ratios were derived from logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, education and federal states.

Results

Among 27,967 participants aged ≥16 years, 8,449, 2,497 and 1,136 individuals had hypertension, diabetes and major CVD. Participants with these chronic diseases visited a GP or specialist significantly more often than the overall study population, irrespective of pandemic phases. Compared to the pre-pandemic phase, a significant reduction in specialist-visiting was found in the first pandemic wave among people with hypertension (34.3% vs 24.1%), diabetes (39.5% vs 25.5%) and major CVD (41.9% vs 25.6%). GP-visiting was lower only among people with hypertension (53.0% vs 46.0%). No difference in GP or specialist visiting was found in the 4th pandemic wave compared to the pre-pandemic phase.

Conclusion

The observed decrease particularly in specialist utilization among people with the selected chronic diseases at the beginning of the pandemic was not observed for the second half of 2021 despite the ongoing pandemic. Further studies are required to examine whether the temporary changes in the utilization of ambulatory health care have affected the disease management of people with chronic diseases.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated disruptions in health-care provision on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered disruptions to health care and lifestyles that could conceivably impact diabetes management. We set out to identify the impact of disruptions caused by COVID-19 on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes. We performed a systematic review of the available literature in the MEDLINE and OVID databases from Jan 1, 2020, to June 7, 2023, and included 138 studies (n>1 000 000 people). All but five studies were judged to be at some risk of bias. All studies compared prepandemic with pandemic periods. All-cause mortality (six studies) and diabetes-related mortality (13 studies) showed consistent increases, and most studies indicated increases in sight loss (six studies). In adult and mixed samples, data generally suggested no difference in diabetic ketoacidosis frequency or severity, whereas in children and adolescents most studies showed increases with some due to new-onset diabetes (69 studies). Data suggested decreases in hospital admissions in adults but increases in diabetes-related admissions to paediatric intensive care units (35 studies). Data were equivocal on diabetic foot ulcer presentations (nine studies), emergency department admissions (nine studies), and overall amputation rates (20 studies). No studies investigated renal failure. Where reported, the impact was most pronounced for females, younger people, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the longer-term impact of the pandemic and the on potential differential impacts, which risk further exacerbating existing inequalities within people with diabetes.

Cardiovascular disease risk management during COVID-19: in-person vs virtual visits

OBJECTIVES

Limited research has assessed how virtual care (VC) affects cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management, especially in community clinic settings. This study assessed change in community clinic patients' CVD risk management during the COVID-19 pandemic and CVD risk factor control among patients who had primarily in-person or primarily VC visits.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective interrupted time-series analysis.

METHODS

Data came from an electronic health record shared by 52 community clinics for index (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and follow-up (July 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022) periods. Analyses compared follow-up period changes in slope and level of population monthly means of 10-year reversible CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among patients whose completed follow-up period visits were primarily in person vs primarily VC. Propensity score weighting minimized confounding.

RESULTS

There were 10,028 in-person and 6593 VC patients in CVD risk analyses, 9874 in-person and 5390 VC patients in BP analyses, and 8221 in-person and 4937 VC patients in HbA1c analyses. The VC group was more commonly younger, female, White, and urban. Mean reversible CVD risk, mean systolic BP, and percentage of BP measurements that were 140/90 mm Hg or higher increased significantly from index to follow-up periods in both groups. Rate of change between these periods was the same for all outcomes in both groups, regardless of care modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among community clinic patients with CVD risk, receiving a majority of care in person vs a majority of care via VC was not significantly associated with longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score or key CVD risk factors.

The COVID-19 pandemic did not negatively impact frequency or continuity of outpatient care in Alberta, Canada

Outpatient care patterns have changed markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this population-based retrospective cohort study, we compared the frequency of outpatient care (whether in-person or virtual) and continuity of care for all community-dwelling adults in Alberta between March 1, 2019 and February 29, 2020 (pre-pandemic) versus March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 (pandemic). We calculated provider continuity using Breslau's Usual Provider Continuity (UPC) for patients with at least 2 outpatient encounters. In 2019-20, 594,350 (98.4%) of 603,877 community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) had [Formula: see text] 1 outpatient visit (median 8 visits, mean UPC score 0.61, SD 0.23), compared to 566,569 (98.6%) of 574,613 (median 8 visits, mean UPC score 0.67, SD 0.23) during the first year of the pandemic. Similar patterns were seen for adults without ACSC: 2,207,710 (93.9%) of 2,350,147 had [Formula: see text] 1 outpatient visit (median 3 visits, mean UPC score 0.61, SD 0.24) pre-pandemic compared to 2,113,239 (93.5%, median 4 visits, mean UPC 0.67, SD 0.24) in the first year of the pandemic. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact frequency of follow-up while continuity of care improved both for patients with or without ACSC in Alberta, Canada.

Sociodemographic disparities in the use of cardiovascular ambulatory care and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of telemedicine in cardiology clinics. Early in the pandemic, there were sociodemographic disparities in telemedicine use. It is unknown if these disparities persisted and whether they were associated with changes in the population of patients accessing care.

METHODS

We examined all adult cardiology visits at an academic and an affiliated community practice in Northern California from March 2019 to February 2020 (pre-COVID) and March 2020 to February 2021 (COVID). We compared patient sociodemographic characteristics between these periods. We used logistic regression to assess the association of patient/visit characteristics with visit modality (in-person vs telemedicine and video- vs phone-based telemedicine) during the COVID period.

RESULTS

There were 54,948 pre-COVID and 58,940 COVID visits. Telemedicine use increased from <1% to 70.7% of visits (49.7% video, 21.0% phone) during the COVID period. Patient sociodemographic characteristics were similar during both periods. In adjusted analyses, visits for patients from some sociodemographic groups were less likely to be delivered by telemedicine, and when delivered by telemedicine, were less likely to be delivered by video versus phone. The observed disparities in the use of video-based telemedicine were greatest for patients aged ≥80 years (vs age <60, OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.21, 0.28), Black patients (vs non-Hispanic White, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.56, 0.74), patients with limited English proficiency (vs English proficient, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.59), and those on Medicaid (vs privately insured, OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.41-0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first year of the pandemic, the sociodemographic characteristics of patients receiving cardiovascular care remained stable, but the modality of care diverged across groups. There were differences in the use of telemedicine vs in-person care and most notably in the use of video- vs phone-based telemedicine. Future studies should examine barriers and outcomes in digital healthcare access across diverse patient groups.