Patient and Care Team Perspectives of Telemedicine in Critical Access Hospitals

A systematic review of telehealth applications in hospital medicine

BACKGROUND

Despite the proliferation of telehealth, uptake for acute inpatient services has been slower. Hospitalist shortages in rural and critical access hospitals as well as the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a renewed interest in telehealth to deliver acute inpatient services. Understanding current evidence is crucial for promoting uptake and developing evidence-based practices.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of telehealth applications in acute inpatient general medicine and pediatric hospital wards and synthesize available evidence.

DATA SOURCES

A search of five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and ProQuest Theses, and Dissertations) using a combination of search terms including telemedicine and hospital medicine/inpatient care keywords yielded 17,015 citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent coders determined eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and organized into main categories based on findings: (1) feasibility and planning, (2) implementation and technology, and (3) telehealth application process and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Of the 20 publications included, three were feasibility and planning studies describing the creation of the program, services provided, and potential cost implications. Five studies described implementation and technology used, including training, education, and evaluation methods. Finally, twelve discussed process and outcome measures, including patient and provider satisfaction and costs.

CONCLUSION

Telehealth services for hospital medicine were found to be effective, well received, and initial cost estimates appear favorable. A variety of services were described across programs with considerable benefit appreciated by rural and smaller hospitals. Additional work is needed to evaluate clinical outcomes and overall program costs.

The Virtual Hospitalist: a Critical Innovation During the COVID-19 Crisis

A virtual hospitalist program expanded our ability to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis at the epicenter of the pandemic in New York City. In concert with on-site hospitalists and redeployed physicians, virtual hospitalists aimed to expand capacity while maintaining high-quality care and communication. The program addressed multiple challenges created by our first COVID-19 surge: high patient census and acuity; limitations of and due to personal protective equipment; increased communication needs due to visitor restrictions and the uncertain nature of the novel disease, and limitations to in-person work for some physicians. The program created a mechanism to train and support new hospitalists and provide and expand palliative care services. We describe how our virtual hospitalist program operated during our COVID-19 surge in April and May 2020 and reflect on potential roles of virtual hospitalists after the COVID-19 crisis passes.

Implementing a Telehospitalist Program Between Veterans Health Administration Hospitals: Outcomes, Acceptance, and Barriers to Implementation

BACKGROUND

Telehospitalist services are an innovative alternative approach to address staffing issues in rural and small hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine clinical outcomes and staff and patient satisfaction with a novel telehospitalist program among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement program with pre- and postimplementation measures. The hub site was a tertiary (high-complexity) VHA hospital, and the spoke site was a 10-bed inpatient medical unit at a rural (low-complexity) VHA hospital. All patients admitted during the study period were assigned to the spoke site.

INTERVENTION

Real-time videoconferencing was used to connect a remote hospitalist physician with an on-site advanced practice provider and patients. Encounters were documented in the electronic health record.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Process measures included workload, patient encounters, and daily census. Outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, mortality, and satisfaction of providers, staff, and patients. Surveys measured satisfaction. Qualitative analysis included unstructured and semi-structured interviews with spoke-site staff.

RESULTS

Telehospitalist program implementation led to a significant reduction in LOS (3.0 [SD, 0.7] days vs 2.3 [SD, 0.3] days). The readmission rate was slightly higher in the telehospitalist group, with no change in mortality rate. Satisfaction among teleproviders was very high. Hub staff perceived the service as valuable, though satisfaction with the program was mixed. Technology and communication challenges were identified, but patient satisfaction remained mostly unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Telehospitalist programs are a feasible and safe way to provide inpatient coverage and address rural hospital staffing needs. Ensuring adequate technological quality and addressing staff concerns in a timely manner can enhance program performance.