RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Acute sore throat is a common complaint traditionally completed with an in-person visit. However, non-face-to-face telemedicine visits offer greater access at reduced cost. We evaluated patient/caregiver asynchronous text-based electronic visits (eVisits) for acute sore throat and whether there was concordance for individual components and total McIsaac score compared to a clinician's assessment. eVisits were completed by patients and/or their caregivers via a secure patient portal. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we manually reviewed charts between February 2017 and July 2019 of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and group A streptococcal (GAS) test performed on the same day for an acute sore throat. We calculated a McIsaac score for eVisits and in-person visits, and compared each component and total score using Cohen's kappa agreement statistic. RESULTS: There were 320 instances of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and GAS testing done on the same day. Approximately a third of eVisits were missing at least one McIsaac component, with the physical examination elements missing most commonly. Individual score congruence was moderate for cough (0.41), fair for fever (0.34) and slight for tonsillar swelling/exudate and lymphadenopathy (0.17 and 0.08, respectively), with total congruence being slight to fair (0.09-0.37). A McIsaac score of ≤1 showed moderate agreement (0.44). Visits with complete individual score components demonstrated improved congruence: substantial for cough (0.64), moderate for fever (0.57), fair for tonsillar swelling (0.3) and slight for lymphadenopathy (0.13). DISCUSSION: Overall agreement for individual score components was better for symptoms than it was for examination components, and was improved when data were complete. A McIsaac score of 1 or 0 had moderate agreement and thus could reasonably be safely used to exclude patients from GAS testing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Most smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have not yet been diagnosed, a statistic that has remained unchanged for over two decades. A dual-focused telehealth intervention that promotes smoking cessation, while also facilitating COPD screening, could help address national priorities to improve the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and management of COPD. The purpose of this study was to preliminarily evaluate an integrated asynchronous smoking cessation and COPD screening e-visit (electronic visit) that could be delivered proactively to adult smokers at risk for COPD, who are treated within primary care. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to examine e-visit feasibility and acceptability, particularly as compared to in-lab diagnostic pulmonary function testing (PFT), and (2) to examine the efficacy of smoking cessation e-visits relative to treatment as usual (TAU), all within primary care. METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial, 125 primary care patients who smoke were randomized 2:1 to receive either proactive e-visits or TAU. Participants randomized to the e-visit condition were screened for COPD symptoms via the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE). Those with scores ≥2 were invited to complete both home spirometry and in-lab PFTs, in addition to two smoking cessation e-visits. Smoking cessation e-visits assessed smoking history and motivation to quit and included completion of an algorithm to determine the best Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication to prescribe. Primary outcomes included measures related to (1) e-visit acceptability, feasibility, and treatment metrics; (2) smoking cessation outcomes (cessation medication use, 24-hour quit attempts, smoking reduction ≥50%, self-reported abstinence, and biochemically confirmed abstinence); and (3) COPD screening outcomes. RESULTS: Of 85 participants assigned to the e-visits, 64 (75.3%) were invited to complete home spirometry and in-lab PFTs based on CAPTURE. Among those eligible for spirometry, 76.6% (49/64) completed home spirometry, and 35.9% (23/64) completed in-lab PFTs. At 1 month, all cessation outcomes favored the e-visit, with a significant effect for cessation medication use (odds ratio [OR]=3.22). At 3 months, all cessation outcomes except for 24-hour quit attempts favored the e-visit, with significant effects for cessation medication use (OR=3.96) and smoking reduction (OR=3.09). CONCLUSIONS: A proactive, asynchronous e-visit for smoking cessation and COPD screening may offer a feasible, efficacious approach for broad interventions within primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04155073; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04155073.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Electronic visits (e-visits) involve asynchronous communication between clinicians and patients through a secure web-based platform, such as a patient portal, to elicit symptoms and determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. E-visits are now reimbursable through Medicare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of evidence regarding e-visits, such as the impact on clinical outcomes and health care delivery, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap, we examine how e-visits have impacted clinical outcomes and health care quality, access, utilization, and costs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review; MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies that assessed e-visits' impacts on clinical and health care delivery outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 1859 papers, 19 met the inclusion criteria. E-visit usage was associated with improved or comparable clinical outcomes, especially for chronic disease management (eg, diabetes care, blood pressure management). The impact on quality of care varied across conditions. Quality of care was equivalent or better for chronic conditions, but variable quality was observed in infection management (eg, appropriate antibiotic prescribing). Similarly, the impact on health care utilization varied across conditions (eg, lower utilization for dermatology but mixed impact in primary care). Health care costs were lower for e-visits than those for in-person visits for a wide range of conditions (eg, dermatology and acute visits). No studies examined the impact of e-visits on health care access. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness or impact on care delivery from the studies that were included because many used observational designs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence suggests e-visits may provide clinical outcomes that are comparable to those provided by in-person care and reduce health care costs for certain health care conditions. At the same time, there is mixed evidence on health care quality, especially regarding infection management (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis). Further studies are needed to test implementation strategies that might improve delivery (eg, clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing) and to assess which conditions can be managed via e-visits.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Acute sinusitis is the most common diagnosis in online health care delivery and is the diagnosis most associated with antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of managing sinusitis through e-visit in terms of antibiotic prescribing and follow-up rates. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether e-visits for the management of acute sinusitis have equivalent clinical outcomes for patients when compared with face-to-face (F2F) visits and nurse-administered phone protocols in terms of antibiotic prescriptions and follow-up rates. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on empaneled primary care patients between the ages of 18 and 75 years who had a clinical encounter for acute sinusitis at Mayo Clinic Rochester through e-visit, retail health clinic, or phone protocol. Initial antibiotic prescribing rates and follow-up rates for each encounter type were compared. Results: Both e-visit and phone protocol sinusitis encounters were less likely to result in initial treatment with an antibiotic than an F2F visit (84/150 [56%] e-visit, 92/150 [61%] phone, 108/150 [72%]; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in follow-up rate between e-visits and F2F (27/150 [18%] vs. 21/150 [14%]; p = 0.34), and e-visits had significantly fewer follow-up visits than phone protocol (27/150 [18%] vs. 53/150 [35%]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: e-Visits are an effective modality to care for patients with acute sinusitis, offering equivalent or lower treatment and follow-up rates than more traditional avenues such as F2F visit at a retail clinic and phone protocol.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Achieving goal serum urate levels in patients with gout remains difficult in primary care and rheumatology practices. This study measured the ability of an asynchronous electronic visit (E-visit) program to facilitate achieving a goal serum urate (SU) of less than 6.0 mg/dL. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in a large academic medical center rheumatology practice between April 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018. Patients with gout and SU levels over 6.0 mg/dL were enrolled in an E-visit program and were compared with historical controls who received usual care, matched 1:1 for age and sex. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients achieving SU target of less than 6.0 mg/dL at six months. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled by their rheumatologist in the gout asynchronous E-visit program and were compared to 62 historical controls who were seen within one year prior to E-visit program initiation. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, renal function, and initial SU were similar among patients enrolled in the E-visit program and controls. At six months, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the E-visit program achieved goal SU of less than 6.0 mg/dL compared to controls (63.8% vs 33.9%, respectively, p < 0.01), and the E-visit patients had a lower mean SU level than historical controls (5.5 mg/dL versus 6.7 mg/dL, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A physician-initiated E-visit program led to a substantial improvement in the rate of achieving goal SU among patients with gout within an academic rheumatology practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Urinary symptoms and urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common complaints for which women seek health care. Evolving modalities of care delivery have shifted management of these complaints from in-person face-to-face (F2F) visits, to nurse phone protocol management, and recently to online assessment via eVisit. While research has vetted the use of nurse phone protocol management, eVisit management outcomes have not been thoroughly studied. Purpose: To compare antibiotic prescribing, follow-up rates, and clinical outcomes between F2F visits at a retail clinic, nurse phone protocol encounters, and eVisits for the assessment and management of urinary symptoms and UTIs. Methods: A retrospective chart review of primary care empaneled patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester was conducted of females, 18 to 65 years old, who sought care for urinary symptoms via phone, eVisit, or F2F visit from August 1, 2016, through May 1, 2017. A total of 450 encounters, 150 from each of the 3 encounter types, were manually reviewed and compared for antibiotic prescribing rates, clinical outcomes, and 30-day follow-up rates. Results: Antibiotic prescribing rates for all three encounter types were similar. Referral for follow-up at initial encounter was more likely to be recommended from phone and eVisit encounters than F2F. No significant differences in follow-up rates or clinical outcomes were noted between the three encounter types. Conclusions: eVisits for urinary symptoms and UTI offer patients a convenient option for care without an increased use of antimicrobials, follow-up, or adverse clinical outcomes when compared with F2F visits or nurse-administered phone protocols.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research paper is to compare antibiotic treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up encounters among eVisits, phone calls, and in-person encounters for pediatric conjunctivitis. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients evaluated for conjunctivitis between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, was performed. A total of 101 eVisits, 202 in-person retail clinic visits, and 202 nurse phone calls for conjunctivitis were manually reviewed for outcomes. Exclusion criteria included previous encounter for conjunctivitis in the past 14 days, treatment with an oral antibiotic at the initial encounter, or patient outside Minnesota at the time of encounter. Comparison among the three encounter types with regard to follow-up rates, follow-up encounter type within 14 days of initial evaluation, and prescribing rates was performed. RESULTS: Patients completing non-face-to-face encounters were significantly more likely to have follow-up care (34.6% and 45.5%) than those who had a face-to-face visit at the retail clinic (7.4%), p ≤ 0.0001. Patients initially evaluated by eVisit were more likely to have follow-up at the retail clinic while patients initially evaluated by phone call were more likely to have follow-up in their primary care office. Treatment rates with antibiotics were significantly higher in phone call encounters (41.6%) than in eVisits (25.7%) or face-to-face encounters (19.8%), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Non-face-to-face visits have significantly higher rates of follow-up when compared to face-to-face encounters. Antibiotic prescribing is greater with phone call triage encounters; however, there was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between eVisits and face-to-face visits. Follow-up type varied according to site of initial encounter.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To understand patient characteristics related to acceptability of returning individual research results via various modalities, focusing on electronic visits (e-visits). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve hundred participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank were selected using a stratified random sampling approach based on sex, age, and education level. Mailed surveys ascertained return of results preferences for 2 disease vignettes (cystic fibrosis and hereditary breast cancer) and a pharmacogenomics vignette. The study was conducted from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014. RESULTS: In all, 685 patients (57%) responded, and 60% reported liking e-visits, although the option of receiving results in an office visit was liked most frequently. Multivariable logistic models showed that the odds of liking the use of e-visits for returning results for cystic fibrosis and hereditary breast cancer were higher among those with higher education and better genetic knowledge and among those not living in proximity to the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota). Level of genetic knowledge was not considerably associated with accepting e-visits, whereas education level remained important. For all vignettes, those who are divorced were less likely to accept e-visits. CONCLUSION: Researchers are faced with a difficult challenge of returning results with a method that is both acceptable to recipients and logistically feasible. This study implies that the use of e-visits may be a viable option for return of results to stratify the chasm between in-person genetic counseling and online portal receipt of results.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Results of a study evaluating quality-of-care, financial, and patient satisfaction outcomes of pharmacist-conducted telehealth visits for diabetes management and warfarin monitoring are reported. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post study was conducted to determine the impact of an electronic visit (e-visit) program targeting 2 groups of outpatients: adults with uncontrolled diabetes and warfarin-treated adults performing patient self-testing (PST) for monitoring of International Normalized Ratio (INR) values. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients participated in the e-visit program during the 2-year study period. Among warfarin-treated patients, the percentage of INR values in the desired range increased relative to preenrollment values (from 62.5% to 72.7%, p = 0.07), and the frequency of extreme INR values (values of <1.5 or >5.0) decreased (from 4.8% to 0.01%, p = 0.01); the margin per patient was $300 during the first year and $191 annually thereafter. In the diabetes group, a decrease from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin values of 3.4 percentage points was observed at 5.7 months after enrollment (p < 0.001), with significant improvements in frequencies of statin use, aspirin use, and blood pressure control; the margin was $100 per patient. The overall median patient satisfaction survey score was 39 of 40. CONCLUSION: An online e-visit model for warfarin monitoring was an efficient, safe, and cost-effective method for implementing PST. Pharmacist-led management of diabetes through e-visits, often in combination with in-person visits, generated revenue while significantly improving clinical outcomes.

Asunto(s)