Changes in telemedicine use and ambulatory visit volumes at a multispecialty cardiovascular center during the COVID-19 pandemic

Disparities in Video-Based Primary Care Use Among Veterans with Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is prevalent among Veterans, and video care enhances access to CVD care. However, it is unknown which patients with CVD conditions receive video care in primary care clinics, where a large proportion of CVD services is delivered.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize use of VA video primary care for Veterans with two common CVDs, heart failure and hypertension.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Veterans seen in VA primary care with diagnoses of heart failure and/or hypertension in the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and for the first two pandemic-years.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was use of any video-based primary care visits. Using multilevel regressions, we examined the association between video care use and patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, controlling for time and adjusting for patient- and site-level clustering.

KEY RESULTS

Of 3.8M Veterans with 51.9M primary care visits, 456,901 Veterans had heart failure and hypertension, 50,753 had heart failure only, and 3,300,166 had hypertension only. Veterans with heart failure and hypertension had an average age of 71.6 years. 2.9% were female, and 34.8% lived in rural settings. Patients who were male, aged 75 or older, or rural-dwelling had lower odds of using video care than female patients, 18-44-year-olds, and urban-dwellers, respectively (male patients' adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.74; 75 years or older, AOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.37-0.38; rural-dwellers, AOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.70-0.71). Veterans with heart failure had higher odds of video care use than those with hypertension only (AOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Given lower odds of video primary care use among some patient groups, continued expansion of video care could make CVD services increasingly inequitable. These insights can inform equitable triage of patients, for example by identifying patients who may benefit from additional support to use virtual care.

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.

The digital journey: 25 years of digital development in electrophysiology from an Europace perspective

AIMS

Over the past 25 years there has been a substantial development in the field of digital electrophysiology (EP) and in parallel a substantial increase in publications on digital cardiology.In this celebratory paper, we provide an overview of the digital field by highlighting publications from the field focusing on the EP Europace journal.

RESULTS

In this journey across the past quarter of a century we follow the development of digital tools commonly used in the clinic spanning from the initiation of digital clinics through the early days of telemonitoring, to wearables, mobile applications, and the use of fully virtual clinics. We then provide a chronicle of the field of artificial intelligence, a regulatory perspective, and at the end of our journey provide a future outlook for digital EP.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 25 years Europace has published a substantial number of papers on digital EP, with a marked expansion in digital publications in recent years.

Recommendations for the care of patients with cardiovascular disease in health emergency situations: a call to action

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on the health care of patients with cardiovascular disease and patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The restrictions affecting access to the health care system have conditioned the care received, resulting in poorer control and a higher risk of events. Taking action to improve the care provided during health emergencies is mandatory. It is important to promote the development of telemedicine and patient empowerment by fostering health literacy and a higher degree of self-care. In addition, primary care and coordination between health care levels should be improved. Moreover, the simplification and optimization of treatment, for example, using the cardiovascular polypill, have led to an improvement in adherence, better control of vascular risk factors, and a reduced risk of events. The present document provides specific recommendations for improving the care provided to patients under a health emergency.

The Feasibility, Effectiveness and Acceptance of Virtual Visits as Compared to In-Person Visits among Clinical Electrophysiology Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

Remote Care Adoption in Underserved Congenital Heart Disease Patients During the COVID-19 Era

The COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-person appointments and prompted an increase in remote healthcare delivery. Our goal was to assess access to remote care for complex pediatric cardiology patients. We performed a retrospective chart review of Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) pediatric cardiology outpatient appointments from March 2020 to December 2020 for established congenital heart disease (CHD) patients 1 to 17 yo. Primary outcome variables were remote care use of telemedicine and patient portal activation. Primary predictor variables were age, sex, insurance, race/ethnicity, language, and location. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient demographics. Multivariate logistic regression determined associations with remote care use (p < 0.05). We identified 5,410 established patients with clinic appointments during the identified timeframe. Adopters of telemedicine included 13% of patients (n = 691). Of the prior non patient portal users, 4.5% activated their accounts. On multivariate analysis, older age (10-17 yo) was associated with increased telemedicine (OR 2.04, 95%CI 1.71, 2.43) and patient portal use (OR 1.70, 95%CI 1.33, 2.17). Public insurance (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.25, 2.20) and Spanish speaking were associated with increased patient portal adoption. Race/ethnicity was not significantly associated with telemedicine use or patient portal adoption. Telehealth adoption among older children may be indicative of their ability to aid in the use of these technologies. Higher participation in patient portal activation among publicly insured and Spanish speaking patients is encouraging and demonstrates ability to navigate some degree of remote patient care. Adoption of remote patient care may assist in reducing access to care disparities.

Drivers of variation in telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experience of a large academic cardiovascular practice

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 spurred rapid adoption and expansion of telemedicine. We investigated the factors driving visit modality (telemedicine vs. in-person) for outpatient visits at a large cardiovascular center.

METHODS

We used electronic health record data from March 2020 to February 2021 from four cardiology subspecialties (general cardiology, electrophysiology, heart failure, and interventional cardiology) at a large academic health system in Northern California. There were 21,912 new and return visits with 69% delivered by telemedicine. We used hierarchical logistic regression and cross-validation methods to estimate the variation in visit modality explained by patient, clinician, and visit factors as measured by the mean area under the curve.

RESULTS

Across all subspecialties, the clinician seen was the strongest predictor of telemedicine usage, while primary visit diagnosis was the next most predictive. In general cardiology, the model based on clinician seen had a mean area under the curve of 0.83, the model based on the primary diagnosis had a mean area under the curve of 0.69, and the model based on all patient characteristics combined had a mean area under the curve of 0.56. There was significant variation in telemedicine use across clinicians within each subspecialty, even for visits with the same primary visit diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Individual clinician practice patterns had the largest influence on visit modality across subspecialties in a large cardiovascular medicine practice, while primary diagnosis was less predictive, and patient characteristics even less so. Cardiovascular clinics should reduce variability in visit modality selection through standardized processes that integrate clinical factors and patient preference.