Cross-Sectional Association of Patient Language and Patient-Provider Language Concordance with Video Telemedicine Use Among Patients with Limited English Proficiency.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine's dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic elevates the importance of addressing patient-care gaps in telemedicine, especially for patients with limited English proficiency. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of patient language and patient-provider language concordance with telemedicine visit type (video versus telephone visit). DESIGN: Cross-sectional automated data study of patient-scheduled primary care telemedicine appointments from March 16, 2020, to October 31, 2020. SETTING: Northern California integrated healthcare delivery system. PARTICIPANTS: All 22,427 completed primary care telemedicine visits scheduled by 13,764 patients with limited English proficiency via the patient portal. MEASUREMENTS: Cross-sectional association of electronic health record-documented patient language (Spanish as referent) and patient-provider language concordance with patients' choice of a video (versus telephone) visit, accounting for patient sociodemographics, technology access, and technology familiarity factors. RESULTS: Of all patient-scheduled visits, 34.5% (n = 7747) were video visits. The top three patient languages were Spanish (42.4%), Cantonese (16.9%), and Mandarin (10.3%). Adjusting for sociodemographic and technology access and familiarity factors and compared to patients speaking Spanish, video visit use was higher among patients speaking Cantonese (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.18-1.52), Mandarin (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.16-1.52), or Vietnamese (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.09-1.47), but lower among patients speaking Punjabi (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.62-0.91). Language concordance was associated with lower video visit use (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.93) and moderated associations of speaking Spanish, Cantonese, and Korean with video visit use. In addition, for all language groups, those with prior video visit use were more likely to re-use video visits compared to those with no prior use (p < .05 for all languages except Hindi with p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Among linguistically diverse patients with limited English proficiency, video telemedicine use differed by specific language. Disaggregating patient subpopulation data is necessary for identifying those at greatest risk of being negatively impacted by the digital divide.

Primary care video and telephone telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: treatment and follow-up health care utilization.

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine use expanded greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and broad use of telemedicine is expected to persist beyond the pandemic. More evidence on the efficiency and safety of different telemedicine modalities is needed to inform clinical and policy decisions around telemedicine use. To evaluate the efficiency and safety of telemedicine, we compared treatment and follow-up care between video and telephone visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of patient-scheduled telemedicine visits for primary care. METHODS: We used multivariate logistic regression to compare treatment (medication prescribing, laboratory/imaging orders) and 7-day follow-up care (in-person office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations) between video and telephone visits, adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among 734,442 telemedicine visits, 58.4% were telephone visits. Adjusted rates of medication prescribing and laboratory/imaging orders were higher in video visits than telephone visits, with differences of 3.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-3.8%) and 3.9% (95% CI, 3.6%-4.1%), respectively. Adjusted rates of 7-day follow-up in-person office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were lower after video than telephone visits, with differences of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.9%), 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.3%), and 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.06%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among telemedicine visits with primary care clinicians, return visits were not common and downstream emergency events were rare. Adjusted rates of treatment measures were higher and adjusted rates of follow-up care were lower for video visits than telephone visits. Although video visits were marginally more efficient than telephone visits, telephone visits may offer an accessible option to address patient primary care needs without raising safety concerns.

The association between video or telephone telemedicine visit type and orders in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is increasingly relied upon for care delivery in primary care, but the impact of visit type on clinical ordering behavior is uncertain. METHODS: Within Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we identified patients who self-scheduled and completed telemedicine encounters with their personal primary care provider or another available primary care provider in the same medical group, between April 1st, 2020, and October 31st, 2020, while physical distancing restrictions for COVID-19 were in place. We collected patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, measures of technology access, and categorized the most common primary encounter diagnoses. We measured proportions of patient-scheduled video versus telephone visits for each of eight diagnosis groups (Skin & Soft Tissue, Musculoskeletal Pain, Back Pain, General Gastrointestinal, Hypertension & Diabetes, Mental Health, Upper Respiratory, and Abdominal Pain), and compared physician orders for medications, antibiotics, lab and imaging studies by visit type within each diagnosis group. RESULTS: There were 273,301 included encounters, with 86,676 (41.5%) video visits and 122,051 (58.5%) telephone visits. Of the diagnosis groups, Skin & Soft Tissue conditions had the highest proportion of video visits (59.7%), while Mental Health conditions had the highest proportion of telephone visits (71.1%). After adjusting for covariates, the overall rates of medication orders (46.6% vs. 44.5%), imaging orders (17.3% vs. 14.9%), lab orders (19.5% vs. 17.2%), and antibiotic orders (7.5% vs. 5.2%) were higher during video visits as compared to telephone visits (p < 0.05). The largest difference within diagnosis groups was for Skin & Soft Tissue conditions, where the rate of medication orders was 9.1% higher than during video visits than telephone visits (45.5% vs. 36.5%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed statistically significant differences in clinician orders by visit type during telemedicine encounters for common primary care conditions. Our findings suggest that, for certain conditions, visual information conveyed during video visits may promote clinical work-up and treatment.

Primary care telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: patient's choice of video versus telephone visit.

The aim of this study is to examine the association between patient characteristics and primary care telemedicine choice among integrated delivery system patients self-scheduling visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between the choice of video versus telephone and patient sociodemographic characteristics and technology access among patient-initiated primary care telemedicine visits scheduled online from March to October 2020. Among 978 272 patient-scheduled primary care telemedicine visits, 39% were video visits. Patients of Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, or living in low socioeconomic status or low internet access neighborhoods were less likely to schedule video visits. Patients 65 years or older, with prior video visit experience or mobile portal access, or visiting their own personal provider were more likely to schedule video visits. While video adoption was substantial in all patient groups examined, differences in telemedicine choice suggest the persistence of a digital divide, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a telephone telemedicine option.