In-Person Visits Before Initiation of Telemedicine for Mental Illness.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mehrotra A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10998149 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
In-Person Visits Before Initiation of Telemedicine for Mental Illness.
Mehrotra Ateev A Busch Alisa B AB Uscher-Pines Lori L Raja Pushpa P Huskamp Haiden A HA
JAMA health forum 20240405 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWith the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly implemented in care settings globally. To understand what factors affect the successful completion of telemedicine visits in our urban, academic family medicine clinic setting, we analysed telemedicine visits carried out during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of telemedicine visits from 2 clinical units within a family medicine centre. To investigate the association between incomplete visits and various factors (age, gender, presenting complaints, physician level of training [resident or staff] and patient-physician relational continuity), we performed a multivariable logistic regression on data from August 2020, February 2021, and May 2021. An incomplete visit is one that requires a follow-up in-person visit with a physician within 3 days.ResultsOf the 2,138 telemedicine patient visits we investigated, 9.6% were incomplete. Patients presenting with lumps and bumps (OR: 3.84, 95% CI: 1.44, 10.5), as well as those seen by resident physicians (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.56) had increased odds of incomplete visits. Telemedicine visits at the family medicine clinic (Site A) with registered patients had lower odds of incomplete visits (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.39) than those at the community clinic (Site B), which provides urgent/episodic care with no associated relational continuity between patients and physicians.ConclusionIn our urban clinical setting, only a small minority of telemedicine visits required an in-person follow-up visit. This information may be useful in guiding approaches to triaging patients to telemedicine or standard in-person care.
| S-EPMC11461682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBeyond initial COVID-19 pandemic emergency expansions of telemedicine use, it is unclear how well primary care telemedicine addresses patients' needs.ObjectiveTo compare treatment and follow-up visits (office, emergency department, hospitalization) between primary care video or telephone telemedicine and in-person office visits.DesignRetrospective design based on administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data.SettingLarge, integrated health care delivery system with more than 1300 primary care providers, between April 2021 and December 2021 (including the COVID-19 pandemic Delta wave).Patients1 589 014 adult patients; 26.5% were aged 65 years or older, 54.9% were female, 22.2% were Asian, 7.4% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 46.5% were White, 21.5% lived in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status, and 31.8% had a chronic health condition.MeasurementsTreatment outcomes included medication or antibiotic prescribing and laboratory or imaging ordering. Follow-up visits included in-person visits to the primary care office or emergency department or hospitalization within 7 days. Outcomes were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics overall and stratified by clinical area (abdominal pain, gastrointestinal concerns, back pain, dermatologic concerns, musculoskeletal pain, routine care, hypertension or diabetes, and mental health).ResultsOf 2 357 598 primary care visits, 50.8% used telemedicine (19.5% video and 31.3% telephone). After adjustment, medications were prescribed in 46.8% of office visits, 38.4% of video visits, and 34.6% of telephone visits. After the visit, 1.3% of in-person visits, 6.2% of video visits, and 7.6% of telephone visits had a 7-day return in-person primary care visit; 1.6% of in-person visits, 1.8% of video visits, and 2.1% of telephone visits were followed by an emergency department visit. Differences in follow-up office visits were largest after index office versus telephone visits for acute pain conditions and smallest for mental health.LimitationsIn the study setting, telemedicine is fully integrated with ongoing EHRs and with clinicians, and the study examines an insured population during the late COVID-19 pandemic period. Observational comparison lacks detailed severity or symptom measures. Follow-up was limited to 7 days. Clinical area categorization uses diagnosis code rather than symptom.ConclusionIn-person return visits were somewhat higher after telemedicine compared with in-person primary care visits but varied by specific clinical condition.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
| S-EPMC11382601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTelemedicine is an increasingly used yet understudied vehicle to deliver pediatric primary care. Evidence detailing downstream health care utilization after telemedicine visits is needed.ObjectiveTo compare pediatric primary care conducted via telemedicine (video or telephone) with in-person office visits with regard to physician medication prescribing and imaging and laboratory ordering and downstream follow-up office visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all patients younger than 18 years who had scheduled primary care appointments with a pediatrician from January 1 to December 31, 2022, in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system, a large integrated health care delivery system offering in-person office visits, video visits, or telephone visits for pediatric primary care.ExposurePediatric primary care in-person visit, telephone visit, or video visit.Main outcome and measuresRates of physician medication prescribing and imaging and laboratory ordering during an index telemedicine or office visit and rates of in-person office visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations within 7 days after the visit, adjusted for patient and clinical characteristics.ResultsOf 782 596 total appointments (51.1% male) among 438 638 patients, telemedicine was used for 332 153 visits (42.4%). After adjustment, there was more medication prescribing for in-person visits (39.8%) compared with video visits (29.5%; adjusted difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -10.6% to -10.0%) or telephone visits (27.3%; adjusted difference, -12.5%; 95% CI, -12.5% to -12.7%). There was also more laboratory ordering for in-person visits (24.6%) compared with video visits (7.8%; adjusted difference, -16.8%; 95% CI, -17.0% to -16.6%) or telephone visits (8.5%; adjusted difference, -16.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -16.0%). There was more imaging ordering for in-person visits (8.5%) compared with video visits (4.0%; adjusted difference, -4.5%; 95% CI, -4.6% to -4.4%) and telephone visits (3.5%; adjusted difference, -5.0%; 95% CI, -5.1% to -4.9%). After adjustment, fewer in-person follow up visits occurred for index visits that were in-person (4.3%) compared with video (14.4%; adjusted difference, 10.1%; 95% CI, 9.9%-10.3%) or telephone (15.1%; adjusted difference, 10.8%; 95% CI, 10.7%-11.0%) visits. The rate of ED visits following an in-person visit was slightly lower (1.75%) compared with after video visits (2.04%; adjusted difference, 0.29%; 95% CI, 0.21%-0.38%) or telephone visits (2.00%; adjusted difference, 0.25%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.33%). There was no statistically significant difference in the 7-day rate of hospitalizations.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, telephone and video visits for pediatric primary care were associated with less prescribing and ordering than in-person visits. Telemedicine visits were associated with modestly higher rates of subsequent in-person visits and slightly higher rates of ED visits, and there was no difference in hospitalizations. Telemedicine appears to be a useful vehicle for health care delivery in the pediatric population, although it is not a universal substitute for in-person visits.
| S-EPMC11584922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLiving kidney donor evaluation is a lengthy and complex process requiring in-person visits. Access to transplant centers, travel costs, lost wages, and dependent care arrangements are barriers to willing donors initiating evaluation. Telemedicine can help streamline and epedite the evaluation process. We aimed to deeply understand donor experiences and preferences using hybrid telemedicine video/in-person visits to ease access to donor evaluation or counseling.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with donors or donor candidates who completed their evaluation through telemedicine/in-person, or in-person only visits at a tertiary transplant center between November 27, 2019 and March 1, 2021. Enrollment continued until data saturation was reached (interviews with 20 participants) when no new information emerged from additional interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsEight themes were identified as follows: (i) reducing financial and logistical burdens (minimizing travel time and travel-related expenses), (ii) enhancing flexibility with scheduling (less time off work and child or family caregiver arrangements), (iii) importance of a walkthrough and establishing shared understanding, (iv) supporting information with technology and visual aids, (v) key role of the coordinator, (vi) preferred visit by provider role (meeting donor surgeon in-person to create rapport and engaging primary care provider in donor evaluation/follow-up), (vii) comparing modality differences in human connection, and (viii) opportunity for family and support network engagement (allowing loved ones to be involved in telemedicine visits irrespective of geographic locations and pandemic restrictions).ConclusionTelemedicine/in-person hybrid model can make donor evaluation more accessible and convenient. Our findings help inform about determinants that influence the adoption of telemedicine to initiate donor evaluation to motivate willing donors. In addition, our results call for policy and legislation that support telemedicine services for living donor kidney transplantation across states.
| S-EPMC11328557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Concern over climate change is growing in the healthcare space, and telemedicine has been rapidly expanding since the start of the COVID19 pandemic. Understanding the various sources of environmental emissions from clinic visits-both virtual and in-person-will help create a more sustainable healthcare system. This study uses a Life Cycle Assessment with retrospective clinical data from Stanford Health Care (SHC) in 2019-2021 to determine the environmental emissions associated with in-person and virtual clinic visits. SHC saw 13% increase in clinic visits, but due to the rise in telemedicine services, the Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) from these visits decreased 36% between 2019 and 2021. Telemedicine (phone and video appointments) helped SHC avoid approximately 17,000 metric tons of GHGs in 2021. Some departments, such as psychiatry and cancer achieved greater GHG reductions, as they were able to perform more virtual visits. Telemedicine is an important component for the reduction of GHGs in healthcare systems; however, telemedicine cannot replace every clinic visit and proper triaging and tracking systems should be in place to avoid duplicative care.
| S-EPMC10169113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about cancellation frequencies in telemedicine vs. in-person appointments and its impact on clinical outcomes. Our objective was to examine differences between in-person and video telemedicine appointments in terms of cancellation rates by age, race, ethnicity, gender, and insurance, and compare 30-day inpatient hospitalizations rates and 30-day emergency department visit rates between the two visit types. Demographic characteristics and comorbidities for adults scheduled for an Emory Healthcare ambulatory clinic appointment from June 2020 to December 2020 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Each appointment was identified as either a video telemedicine or in-person clinic appointment. The outcomes were ambulatory clinic cancellation rates, 30-day hospitalization rates, and 30-day emergency department visit rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences between appointment types. A total of 1,652,623 ambulatory clinic appointments were scheduled. Ambulatory appointment cancellations rates were significantly lower among telemedicine compared to in-person appointments overall (20.4% vs. 31.0%, p < .001) and regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance, or specialty (p < .05 for all sub-groups). Telemedicine appointments were associated with lower 30-day hospitalization rates compared to in-person appointments (AOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.71-0.74). There was no difference in 30-day emergency department visit rates between telemedicine and in-person appointment patients (AOR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02). Our findings suggest that there are fewer barriers to attending an ambulatory care visit via telemedicine relative to in-person. Using video telemedicine was not associated with more frequent adverse clinical events compared with in-person visits.
| S-EPMC8684024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWhile the health care community advocates broadly for climate change policy, medical professionals can look within care practices to assess their contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and provide solutions wherever possible. Telemedicine can help in mitigating climate change by providing care from a distance.ObjectiveTo assess the carbon savings achieved from telemedicine visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits was conducted at a single-institution National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and above, completed telemedicine visits from April 1, 2020, to June 20, 2021, and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record. Groups were divided between those within driving time of 60 minutes (1-way) to the cancer center vs those living beyond 60 minutes of drive time. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and June 2021.Main outcomes and measuresCarbon emission savings from telemedicine, measured in total and average per-visit savings.ResultsA total 49 329 telemedicine visits with 23 228 patients were conducted from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. A total 21 489 visits were for patients with driving time of 60 minutes or less (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [52.0-71.0] years; 12 334 [57.4%] female; 1685 [7.8%] Black, 1500 [7.0%] Hispanic, 16 010 [74.5%] non-Hispanic White), while 27 840 visits were for patients with driving time greater than 60 minutes (median [IQR] age, 67.0 [57.0-74.0] years; 14 372 [51.6%] female; 1056 [3.8%] Black, 1364 [5.0%] Hispanic, 22 457 [80.7%] non-Hispanic White). For patients living within a driving time of 60 minutes from the cancer center, 424 471 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean [SD] emissions savings, 19.8 [9.4] kg CO2 per visit) due to telemedicine-equivalent to 91.5 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. For patients whose driving distance was greater than 60 minutes, 2 744 248 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean emissions savings, 98.6 [54.8] kg CO2 per visit)-equivalent to 591 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year.Conclusions and relevanceUsing a large data set, this cross-sectional analysis highlighted the carbon emissions savings due to telemedicine in oncology. This has important implications in reducing health care-related carbon footprint.
| S-EPMC9890284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTelemedicine practice has been shown to vary from clinical guidelines. Variations in practice patterns may be caused by disruptions in the continuity of care between traditional and telemedicine providers. This study compares virtual and in-person visits in Stanford's ClickWell Care (CWC) - where patients see the same provider for both visit modalities.MethodsClinical data for two years of patient encounters at CWC from January 2015-2017 (5772 visits) were obtained through Stanford STRIDE. For the 20 most common visit categories, including 17 specific diagnoses, we compared the frequency of prescriptions, labs, procedures, and images ordered, as well as rates of repeat visits.ResultsFor the 17 specific diagnoses, there are no differences in labs ordered. Two diagnoses show differences in images ordered, and four differences in prescriptions. Overall, there are more labs (0.16 virtual, 0.33 in-person p < 0.0001) and images ordered (0.07 virtual, 0.16 in-person, p < 0.0001) for in-person visits - due mainly to general medical exam visits. Repeat visits were more likely after in-person visits (19% virtual, 38% in-person, p < 0.0001), 10 out of 17 specific diagnoses showed differences in visit frequency between visit modalities. Visits for both anxiety (5.3x, p < 0.0001) and depression (5.1x, p < 0.0001) were much more frequent in the virtual setting.ConclusionsPrescriptions, labs, and images ordered were similar between in-person and virtual visits for most diagnoses. Overall however, for in-person visits we find increased orders for labs and images, primarily from general medical exams. Finally, for anxiety and depression patients show clear preferences for virtual visits.
| S-EPMC7503002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC10647122 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8661784 | biostudies-literature