General practitioners' perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international cross-sectional survey study.

With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June-September 2020. GPs' perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients' preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation (preprint)

Background: With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. Objective: We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital remote care. Methods: GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June - September 2020. GPs' perceptions on main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and the accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patient's preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital remote care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. Conclusion: At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how. Lessons learned during the emergency phase can be used to inform the stable adoption of virtual care solutions, and co-design processes and platforms that are technologically robust, secure, and supported by a strategic long-term plan.

Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Adoption of Virtual Care in General Practice in 20 Countries (inSIGHT): Protocol and Rationale Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, virtual care has emerged as a promising option to support primary care delivery. However, despite the potential, adoption rates remained low. With the outbreak of COVID-19, it has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of care delivery. As we progress into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need and opportunity to review the impact remote care had in primary care settings and reassess its potential future role. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and family doctors on the (1) use of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and (3) essential factors for high-quality and sustainable use of virtual care in the future. METHODS: This study used an online cross-sectional questionnaire completed by GPs distributed across 20 countries. The survey was hosted in Qualtrics and distributed using email, social media, and the researchers' personal contact networks. GPs were eligible for the survey if they were working mainly in primary care during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed for quantitative variables, and relationships between the use of virtual care and perceptions on impact on quality and safety of care and participants' characteristics may be explored. Qualitative data (free-text responses) will be analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Data collection took place from June 2020 to September 2020. As of this manuscript's submission, a total of 1605 GP respondents participated in the questionnaire. Further data analysis is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of virtual care technologies, perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and essential factors for high-quality future use. In addition, a description of the underlying factors that influence this adoption and perceptions, in both individual GP and family doctor characteristics and the context in which they work, will be provided. While the COVID-19 pandemic may prove the first great stress test of the capabilities, capacity, and robustness of digital systems currently in use, remote care will likely remain an increasingly common approach in the future. There is an imperative to identify the main lessons from this unexpected transformation and use them to inform policy decisions and health service design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30099.

Machine Learning as a Precision-Medicine Approach to Prescribing COVID-19 Pharmacotherapy with Remdesivir or Corticosteroids.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) continues to be a global threat and remains a significant cause of hospitalizations. Recent clinical guidelines have supported the use of corticosteroids or remdesivir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, uncertainty remains about which patients are most likely to benefit from treatment with either drug; such knowledge is crucial for avoiding preventable adverse effects, minimizing costs, and effectively allocating resources. This study presents a machine-learning system with the capacity to identify patients in whom treatment with a corticosteroid or remdesivir is associated with improved survival time. METHODS: Gradient-boosted decision-tree models used for predicting treatment benefit were trained and tested on data from electronic health records dated between December 18, 2019, and October 18, 2020, from adult patients (age ≥18 years) with COVID-19 in 10 US hospitals. Models were evaluated for performance in identifying patients with longer survival times when treated with a corticosteroid versus remdesivir. Fine and Gray proportional-hazards models were used for identifying significant findings in treated and nontreated patients, in a subset of patients who received supplemental oxygen, and in patients identified by the algorithm. Inverse probability-of-treatment weights were used to adjust for confounding. Models were trained and tested separately for each treatment. FINDINGS: Data from 2364 patients were included, with men comprising slightly more than 50% of the sample; 893 patients were treated with remdesivir, and 1471 were treated with a corticosteroid. After adjustment for confounding, neither corticosteroids nor remdesivir use was associated with increased survival time in the overall population or in the subpopulation that received supplemental oxygen. However, in the populations identified by the algorithms, both corticosteroids and remdesivir were significantly associated with an increase in survival time, with hazard ratios of 0.56 and 0.40, respectively (both, P = 0.04). IMPLICATIONS: Machine-learning methods have the capacity to identify hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in whom treatment with a corticosteroid or remdesivir is associated with an increase in survival time. These methods may help to improve patient outcomes and allocate resources during the COVID-19 crisis.

A Racially Unbiased, Machine Learning Approach to Prediction of Mortality: Algorithm Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in health care are well documented in the United States. As machine learning methods become more common in health care settings, it is important to ensure that these methods do not contribute to racial disparities through biased predictions or differential accuracy across racial groups. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to assess a machine learning algorithm intentionally developed to minimize bias in in-hospital mortality predictions between white and nonwhite patient groups. METHODS: Bias was minimized through preprocessing of algorithm training data. We performed a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data from patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at a large academic health center between 2001 and 2012, drawing data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III database. Patients were included if they had at least 10 hours of available measurements after ICU admission, had at least one of every measurement used for model prediction, and had recorded race/ethnicity data. Bias was assessed through the equal opportunity difference. Model performance in terms of bias and accuracy was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE). RESULTS: The machine learning algorithm was found to be more accurate than all comparators, with a higher sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic. The machine learning algorithm was found to be unbiased (equal opportunity difference 0.016, P=.20). APACHE was also found to be unbiased (equal opportunity difference 0.019, P=.11), while SAPS II and MEWS were found to have significant bias (equal opportunity difference 0.038, P=.006 and equal opportunity difference 0.074, P<.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates there may be significant racial bias in commonly used severity scoring systems and that machine learning algorithms may reduce bias while improving on the accuracy of these methods.

Is Machine Learning a Better Way to Identify COVID-19 Patients Who Might Benefit from Hydroxychloroquine Treatment?-The IDENTIFY Trial.

Therapeutic agents for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been proposed, but evidence supporting their use is limited. A machine learning algorithm was developed in order to identify a subpopulation of COVID-19 patients for whom hydroxychloroquine was associated with improved survival; this population might be relevant for study in a clinical trial. A pragmatic trial was conducted at six United States hospitals. We enrolled COVID-19 patients that were admitted between 10 March and 4 June 2020. Treatment was not randomized. The study endpoint was mortality; discharge was a competing event. Hazard ratios were obtained on the entire population, and on the subpopulation indicated by the algorithm as suitable for treatment. A total of 290 patients were enrolled. In the subpopulation that was identified by the algorithm, hydroxychloroquine was associated with a statistically significant (p = 0.011) increase in survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.75). Adjusted survival among the algorithm indicated patients was 82.6% in the treated arm and 51.2% in the arm not treated. No association between treatment and mortality was observed in the general population. A 31% increase in survival at the end of the study was observed in a population of COVID-19 patients that were identified by a machine learning algorithm as having a better outcome with hydroxychloroquine treatment. Precision medicine approaches may be useful in identifying a subpopulation of COVID-19 patients more likely to be proven to benefit from hydroxychloroquine treatment in a clinical trial.

Prediction of respiratory decompensation in Covid-19 patients using machine learning: The READY trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, physicians are limited in their ability to provide an accurate prognosis for COVID-19 positive patients. Existing scoring systems have been ineffective for identifying patient decompensation. Machine learning (ML) may offer an alternative strategy. A prospectively validated method to predict the need for ventilation in COVID-19 patients is essential to help triage patients, allocate resources, and prevent emergency intubations and their associated risks. METHODS: In a multicenter clinical trial, we evaluated the performance of a machine learning algorithm for prediction of invasive mechanical ventilation of COVID-19 patients within 24 h of an initial encounter. We enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis who were admitted to five United States health systems between March 24 and May 4, 2020. RESULTS: 197 patients were enrolled in the REspirAtory Decompensation and model for the triage of covid-19 patients: a prospective studY (READY) clinical trial. The algorithm had a higher diagnostic odds ratio (DOR, 12.58) for predicting ventilation than a comparator early warning system, the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). The algorithm also achieved significantly higher sensitivity (0.90) than MEWS, which achieved a sensitivity of 0.78, while maintaining a higher specificity (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the first clinical trial of a machine learning algorithm for ventilation needs among COVID-19 patients, the algorithm demonstrated accurate prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation within 24 h. This algorithm may help care teams effectively triage patients and allocate resources. Further, the algorithm is capable of accurately identifying 16% more patients than a widely used scoring system while minimizing false positive results.