ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel scoring system, the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY), to assess provider perceptions of telehealth appropriateness in rheumatology encounters. METHODS: The EASY scoring system prompts providers to rate their own encounters as follows: in-person or telehealth acceptable, EASY = 1; in-person preferred, EASY = 2; or telehealth preferred, EASY = 3. Assessment of the EASY scoring system occurred at a single academic institution from January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021. Data were collected in three rounds: 1) initial survey (31 providers) assessing EASY responsiveness to five hypothetical scenarios, 2) follow-up survey (34 providers) exploring EASY responsiveness to 11 scenario modifications, and 3) assessment of EASYs documented in clinic care. RESULTS: The initial and follow-up surveys demonstrated responsiveness of EASYs to different clinical and nonclinical factors. For instance, less than 20% of providers accepted telehealth when starting a biologic for active rheumatoid arthritis, although more than 35% accepted telehealth in the same scenario if the patient lived far away or was well known to the provider. Regarding EASY documentation, 27 providers provided EASYs for 12,381 encounters. According to these scores, telehealth was acceptable or preferred for 29.7% of all encounters, including 21.4% of in-person encounters. Conversely, 24.4% of telehealth encounters were scored as in-person preferred. CONCLUSION: EASY is simple, understandable, and responsive to changes in the clinical scenario. We have successfully accumulated 12,381 EASYs that can be studied in future work to better understand telehealth utility and optimize telehealth triage.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about abrupt changes in the way health care is delivered, and the impact of transitioning outpatient clinic visits to telehealth visits on processes of care and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated ordering patterns during cardiovascular telehealth clinic visits in the Duke University Health System between March 15 and June 30, 2020 and 30-day outcomes compared with in-person visits in the same time frame in 2020 and in 2019. RESULTS: Within the Duke University Health System, there was a 33.1% decrease in the number of outpatient cardiovascular visits conducted in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the same time period in 2019. As a proportion of total visits initially booked, 53% of visits were cancelled in 2020 compared to 35% in 2019. However, patients with cancelled visits had similar demographics and comorbidities in 2019 and 2020. Telehealth visits comprised 9.3% of total visits initially booked in 2020, with younger and healthier patients utilizing telehealth compared with those utilizing in-person visits. Compared with in-person visits in 2020, telehealth visits were associated with fewer new (31.6% for telehealth vs 44.6% for in person) or refill (12.9% vs 15.6%, respectively) medication prescriptions, electrocardiograms (4.3% vs 31.4%), laboratory orders (5.9% vs 21.8%), echocardiograms (7.3% vs 98%), and stress tests (4.4% vs 6.6%). When adjusted for age, race, and insurance status, those who had a telehealth visit or cancelled their visit were less likely to have an emergency department or hospital encounter within 30 days compared with those who had in-person visits (adjusted rate ratios (aRR) 0.76 [95% 0.65, 0.89] and aRR 0.71 [95% 0.65, 0.78], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In response to the perceived risks of routine medical care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, different phenotypes of patients chose different types of outpatient cardiology care. A better understanding of these differences could help define necessary and appropriate mode of care for cardiology patients.