Not Telehealth: Which Primary Care Visits Need In-Person Care?

A multilevel analysis of changing telehealth availability in opioid use disorder treatment settings: Conditional effects of rurality, the number and types of medication for opioid use disorder available, and time, US, 2016-2023

PURPOSE

The opioid overdose crisis requires strengthening treatment systems with innovative technologies. How people use telehealth for opioid use disorder (OUD) is evolving and differs in rural versus urban areas, as telehealth is emerging as a local resource and complementary option to in-person treatment. We assessed changing trends in telehealth and medication for OUD (MOUD) and pinpoint locations of low telehealth and MOUD access.

METHODS

We used national data from the Mental health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository (2016-2023) to identify specialty outpatient SUD treatment facilities in the United States (N = 83,988). We modeled the availability of telehealth using multilevel multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for covariates. We included a 3-way interaction to test for conditional effects of rurality, the number of MOUD medication types dispensed, and year. We included two random effects to account for clustering within counties and states.

FINDINGS

We identified 495 facilities that offered both telehealth and all three MOUD medication types (methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) in 2023, clustered in the eastern United States. We identified a statistically significant 3-way interaction (p < 0.0001), indicating that telehealth in facilities that did not offer MOUD shifted from more telehealth in rural facilities in earlier years to more telehealth in urban facilities in later years.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment facilities that offer both telehealth and all three MOUD medication types may improve access for hard-to-reach populations. We stress the importance of continued health system strengthening and technological resources in vulnerable rural communities, while acknowledging a changing landscape of increased OUD incidence and MOUD demand in urban communities.

Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium

OBJECTIVE

To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits.

DESIGN

An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SETTING

Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents.

POPULATION

Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA.

METHODS

Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021.

RESULTS

During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care.

CONCLUSIONS

In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

"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.

Telehealth Competencies: Training Physicians for a New Reality?

In North America, telehealth increased by 40% between 2019 and 2020 and stabilized at 40% in 2021. As telehealth becomes more common, it is essential to ensure that healthcare providers have the required skills to overcome the challenges and barriers of this new modality of care. While the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the design and implementation of telehealth curricula in healthcare education programs, its general adoption is still a major gap and an important barrier to ensuring scaling up and sustainability of the telesshealth practice. Lack of experienced faculty and limited curricular time are two of the most common barriers to expanding telehealth education. Overcoming the barriers of telehealth curricula implementation may require moving away from the classic expert model of learning in which novices learn from experts. As the adoption of telehealth curricula is still in its early stages, institutions may need to plan for faculty development and trainee education at the same time. Questions regarding the timing and content of telehealth education, the interprofessional development of curricula, and the identification of optimal pedagogical methods remain open and crucial. This article reflects on these questions and presents telesimulation as an ideal instructional method for the training of telehealth competencies. Telesimulation can provide opportunities for practical training across a range of telehealth competencies, fostering not only technical proficiency but also communication skills and interprofessional collaboration.

Drivers of telemedicine in primary care clinics at a large academic medical centre

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 disrupted healthcare routines and prompted rapid telemedicine implementation. We investigated the drivers of visit modality selection (telemedicine versus in-person) in primary care clinics at an academic medical centre.

METHODS

We used electronic medical record data from March 2020 to May 2022 from 13 primary care clinics (N = 21,031 new, N = 207,292 return visits), with 55% overall telemedicine use. Hierarchical logistic regression and cross-validation methods were used to estimate the variation in visit modality explained by the patient, clinician and visit factors as measured by the mean-test area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

There was significant variation in telemedicine use across clinicians (ranging from 0-100%) for the same visit diagnosis. The strongest predictors of telemedicine were the clinician seen for new visits (mean AUC of 0.79) and the primary visit diagnosis for return visits (0.77). Models based on all patient characteristics combined accounted for relatively little variation in modality selection, 0.54 for new and 0.58 for return visits, respectively. Amongst patient characteristics, males, patients over 65 years, Asians and patient's with non-English language preferences used less telemedicine; however, those using interpreter services used significantly more telemedicine.

CONCLUSION

Clinician seen and primary visit diagnoses were the best predictors of visit modality. The distinction between new and return visits and the minimal impact of patient characteristics on visit modality highlights the complexity of clinical care and warrants research approaches that go beyond linear models to uncover the emergent causal effects of specific technology features mediated by tasks, people and organisations.

Patients' perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that telemedicine can eliminate geographical and time limitations and offer the possibility of diagnosing, treating, and preventing diseases by sharing reliable information, many individuals still prefer to visit medical centers for in-person consultations. The aim of this study was to determine the level of acceptance of telemedicine compared to in-person visits, identify the perceived advantages of telemedicine over in-person visits, and to explore the reasons why patients choose either of these two types of visits.

METHODS

We developed a questionnaire using the rational method. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. A total of 2059 patients were invited to participate in the study. Chi-square tests and descriptive statistics were employed for data analysis. To analyze the data from the open-ended question, we conducted qualitative content analysis using MAXQDA 18.

RESULTS

Out of the 1226 participants who completed the questionnaire, 865 (71%) preferred in-person visits, while 361 (29%) preferred telemedicine. Factors such as education level, specific health conditions, and prior experience with telemedicine influenced the preference for telemedicine. The participants provided a total of 183 different reasons for choosing either telemedicine (108 reasons) or in-person visits (75 reasons). Avoiding infectious diseases, saving cost, and eliminating and overcoming geographical distance barriers were three primary telemedicine benefits. The primary reasons for selecting an in-person visit were: more accurate diagnosis of the disease, more accurate and better examination of the patient by the physician, and more accurate and better treatment of the disease.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that despite the numerous benefits offered by telemedicine, the majority of patients still exhibit a preference for in-person visits. In order to promote broader acceptance of telemedicine, it becomes crucial for telemedicine services to address patient preferences and concerns effectively. Employing effective change management strategies can aid in overcoming resistance and facilitating the widespread adoption of telemedicine within the population.

Telehealth's future in Australian primary health care: a qualitative study exploring lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth emerged as a means of safely providing primary healthcare (PHC) consultations. In Australia, changes to telehealth funding led to the reconsideration of the role of telehealth in the ongoing provision of PHC services.

AIM

To investigate GPs', registered nurses' (RNs), nurse practitioners' (NPs), and allied health (AH) clinicians perceptions of the sustainability of telehealth in PHC post-pandemic.

DESIGN & SETTING

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 33 purposively selected clinicians, including GPs (n = 13), RNs (n = 5), NPs (n = 9), and AH clinicians (n = 6) working in PHC settings across Australia. Participants were drawn from responders to a national survey of PHC providers (n = 217).

METHOD

The thematic analysis approach reported by Braun and Clarke was used to analyse the interview data.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed that the perception of providers was represented by the following two themes: lessons learnt; and the sustainability of telehealth. Lessons learnt included the need for rapid adaptation to telehealth, use of technology, and the pandemic being a catalyst for long-term change. The sustainability of telehealth in PHC comprised four subthemes around challenges: the funding model, maintaining patient and provider safety, hybrid service models, and access to support.

CONCLUSION

Providers required resilience and flexibility to adapt to telehealth. Funding models must reward providers from an outcome focus, rather than placing limits on telehealth's use. Hybrid approaches to service delivery will best meet the needs of the community but must be accompanied by support and education for PHC professionals.

Examining telehealth use among primary care patients, providers, and clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

At the onset of COVID-19, there was a rapid expansion of telehealth (video/telephone) visits to maintain delivery of primary care (PC) services at the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study examines patient, provider, and site-level characteristics of any virtual and video-based care in PC.

Methods

Interrupted time series (ITS) design was conducted using VA administrative/clinical, electronic healthcare data, 12-months before and 12-months after COVID-19 onset (set at March 2020) at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (GLA), between 2019 and 2021. Patients with at least one visit to a VA PC clinic at GLA (n = 547,730 visits) were included in the analysis. The two main outcomes for this study were 1) any telehealth (versus in-person), as well as 2) video-based care (versus telephone). For the ITS analysis, segmented logistic regression on repeated monthly observations of any telehealth and video-based care was used.

Results

Percent telehealth and video use increased from 13.9 to 63.1%, and 0.3 to 11.3%, respectively, before to after COVID-19 onset. According to adjusted percentages, GLA community-based clinics (37.7%, versus 29.8% in hospital-based clinics, p < .001), social workers/pharmacists/dietitians (53.7%, versus 34.0% for PC clinicians, p < .001), and minority groups, non-Hispanic African Americans (36.3%) and Hispanics (34.4%, versus 35.3% for Whites, p < .001) were more likely to use telephone than video. Conversely, mental health providers (43.3%) compared to PC clinicians (15.3%), and women (for all age groups, except 75+) compared to men, were more likely to use video than telephone (all p’s < .001).

Conclusions

Since telehealth care provision is likely to continue after COVID-19, additional research is needed to identify which PC outpatient services are better suited for telephone (e.g., case management) versus video-based care (e.g., integrated mental health visits). Additionally, it is important to understand how all clinics can systematically increase access to both telephone- and video-based PC services, while ensuring equitable care for all patient populations.

Visit Types in Primary Care With Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Telehealth was rapidly incorporated into primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is limited evidence on which primary care visits used telehealth.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to assess what visit types in primary care with use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic were reported; for each visit type identified in primary care, under what circumstances telehealth was suitable; and reported benefits and drawbacks of using telehealth in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This study was a systematic review using narrative synthesis. Studies were obtained from four databases (Ovid [MEDLINE], CINAHL Complete, PDQ-Evidence, and ProQuest) and gray literature (NSW Health, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guidelines, and World Health Organization guidelines). In total, 3 independent reviewers screened studies featuring telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary care. Levels of evidence were assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Critical appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Benefits and drawbacks of telehealth were assessed according to the National Quality Forum Telehealth Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies, predominately cross-sectional surveys or interviews (13/19, 68%), were included. Seven primary care visit types were identified: chronic condition management (17/19, 89%), existing patients (17/19, 89%), medication management (17/19, 89%), new patients (16/19, 84%), mental health/behavioral management (15/19, 79%), post-test result follow-up (14/19, 74%), and postdischarge follow-up (7/19, 37%). Benefits and drawbacks of telehealth were reported across all visit types, with chronic condition management being one of the visits reporting the greatest use because of a pre-existing patient-provider relationship, established diagnosis, and lack of complex physical examinations. Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of telehealth, including improved convenience, focused discussions, and continuity of care despite social distancing. Reported drawbacks included technical barriers, impersonal interactions, and semi-established reimbursement models.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth was used for different visit types during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary care, with most visits for chronic condition management, existing patients, and medication management. Further research is required to validate our findings and explore the long-term impact of hybrid models of care for different visit types in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022312202; https://tinyurl.com/5n82znf4.

Face-to-Face and Tele-Consults: A Study of the Effects on Diagnostic Activity and Patient Demand in Primary Healthcare

Primary healthcare services have changed from face-to-face to tele-consults during the two COVID-19 years. We examined trends before and during the COVID-19 pandemic years based on groups of professionals, patient ages, and the associations with the diagnostic registry. We analyzed proportions for both periods, and ratios of the type of consults in 2017-2019 and 2020-2021 were calculated. The COVID-19 period was examined using monthly linear time trends. The results showed that consults in 2020-2021 increased by 24%. General practitioners saw significant falls in face-to-face consults compared with 2017-2019 (ratio 0.44; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.45), but the increase was not proportional across age groups; patients aged 15-44 years had 45.8% more tele-consults, and those aged >74 years had 18.2% more. Trends in linear regression models of face-to-face consults with general practitioners and monthly diagnostic activity were positive, while the tele-consult trend was inverse to the trend of the diagnostic registry and face-to-face consults. Tele-consults did not resolve the increased demand for primary healthcare services caused by COVID-19. General practitioners, nurses and primary healthcare professionals require better-adapted tele-consult tools for an effective diagnostic registry to maintain equity of access and answer older patients' needs and priorities in primary healthcare.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care physicians in Israel, with comparison to an international cohort: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care and primary care physicians (PCPs) in Israel and around the world. There is paucity of information regarding treatment of patients with COVID-19 in the community, since most research was performed in hospitals. The aim of this study was to describe the Israeli PCPs' experience.

METHODS

This study is a part of an international cross-sectional study, the PRICOV-19. A translated version of the questionnaire was distributed among Israeli PCPs from December 2020 to July 2021. In this study, we describe the Israeli results and compare them to the international results.

RESULTS

5,961 respondents from 29 countries answered the questionnaire, 94 from Israel, with an Israeli response rate of 16%. Israeli PCPs reported an increase in use of telemedicine from 11 to 49% during the COVID epidemic. PCPs also reported a decline in their wellbeing; absence of secured time slots for keeping updated; perception that the Ministry of Health guidelines were a threat to the staff wellbeing and organization of practice and delays in the examination of non-COVID urgent cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study raise concerns regarding the PCPs experience and may form the basis for an improved process of care. Guidelines for proper usage of telemedicine, substitutes for the physical examination and procedures for minimizing delayed patient examination for urgent conditions should be developed. Government directives and clinical guidelines should be communicated in a timely manner, with secured timeslots for physicians' self-learning or updating. Ensuring physicians' well-being in general should be an organization priority.

Post-acute college student satisfaction with telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Patient satisfaction with telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic has generally been positive, but few studies have compared patient experiences across settings, and no study to date has investigated the experience of college students receiving post-acute mental health treatment in an outpatient setting.

PARTICIPANTS

The current study surveyed college student outpatients (n = 101) to understand their experiences using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was delivered electronically and included questions regarding patients' age, treatment length, telehealth use, and their experience and satisfaction with telepsychiatry. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze responses between groups through Chi-Square, Kruskal-Wallis, or Mann-Whitney tests, and qualitatively to understand themes across items related to the benefits and challenges of telehealth.

RESULTS

College students were more likely to utilize video-based telehealth and preferred video-based care. College students receiving medication management were much more likely to endorse telehealth being as helpful as in-person treatment. Several challenges associated with telehealth were raised in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the benefits and challenges of telepsychiatry in this high-risk college population may help enhance access to care during a critical period of development in which most psychopathology emerges.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Teamwork: a Qualitative Study in Two States

BACKGROUND

The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted how primary care physicians (PCPs) and their staff delivered team-based care.

OBJECTIVE

To explore PCPs' perspectives about the impact of stay-at-home orders and the increased use of telemedicine on interactions and working relationships with their practice staff during the first 9 months of the pandemic.

DESIGN

Qualitative research.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included PCPs from family and community medicine, general internal medicine, and pediatrics.

APPROACH

One-on-one, semi-structured video interviews with 42 PCPs were conducted between July and December 2020. Physicians were recruited from 30 primary care practices in Massachusetts and Ohio using a combination of purposeful, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview questions focused on work changes and work relationships with other staff members during the pandemic as well as their experiences delivering telemedicine. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using deductive and inductive approaches.

KEY RESULTS

Across respondents and states, the context of the pandemic was reported to have four major impacts on primary care teamwork: (1) staff members' roles were repurposed to support telemedicine; (2) PCPs felt disconnected from staff; (3) PCPs had difficulty communicating with staff; and (4) many PCPs were demoralized during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of in-person contact, and less synchronous communication, negatively impacted PCP-staff teamwork and morale during the pandemic. These challenges further highlight the importance for practice leaders to recognize and attend to clinicians' relational and work-related needs as the pandemic continues.

Emergency Department Management of Hypertension in the Context of COVID-19

Purpose of Review

This review describes the relationship between COVID-19 and hypertension (HTN), and considerations for emergency medicine providers in the management of hypertensive patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recent Findings

Hypertensive patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of severe disease/complications, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and mortality than non-hypertensive patients. Studies have also shown the importance of consideration of various demographic factors (such as older age) and socioeconomic factors that may confound these relationships. Despite concerns at the start of the pandemic that RAAS inhibiting antihypertension medications may contribute to worsened outcomes in COVID-19 patients, subsequent research has shown that use of ACEi/ARBs is associated with neutral or even improved COVID-19 outcomes. Socioeconomic factors must also be considered including patients’ potential delay of health care due to fear of contracting COVID-19, loss of health insurance, and barriers to accessing primary care appointments for post-ED follow-up care.

Summary

While there is mixed evidence on biological considerations for HTN care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic has undoubtedly been a major stressor and barrier to effective chronic disease management. Emergency medicine and other providers should consider this when evaluating acute care patients with a history of HTN or newly elevated blood pressure.