Patient Experience With an In-Home COVID Virtual Observation Unit: An Analysis.

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a novel, home-based COVID Virtual Observation Unit (CVOU) from an urban, university-affiliated emergency department with ∼112,000 annual visits. Telephone-based survey questions were administered by nursing staff working with the program. Of 402 patients enrolled in the CVOU, 221 (55%) were able to be contacted during the study period; 180 (45%) agreed to participate in the telephone interview. Overall, 95% (169 out of 177) of the surveyed patients reported 8 to 10 on the likelihood to recommend CVOU and 82% (100 out of 122) rated the quality of care as 10 out of 10. Over 90% of respondents reported that all role groups (nurses, paramedics, and physicians) treated them with courtesy and respect, explained things in an understandable way, and listened to them carefully. Over 80% of respondents reported that the program kept them at home. In summary, patient experiences with this novel home-based care program were highly positive. These data help underscore the importance of patient-centeredness in home-based care, and further support the concept of these innovative care models.

Implementing a COVID-19 Virtual Observation Unit in Emergency Medicine: Frontline Clinician and Staff Experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic pushed hospitals to deliver care outside of their four walls. To successfully scale virtual care delivery, it is important to understand how its implementation affects frontline workers, including their teamwork and patient-provider interactions. We conducted in-depth interviews of 17 clinicians and staff involved with the COVID-19 Virtual Observation Unit (CVOU) in the emergency department (ED) of an academic hospital. The program leveraged remote patient monitoring and mobile integrated health care. In the CVOU (vs. the ED), participants observed increases in interactions among clinicians and staff, patient participation in care delivery, attention to nonmedical factors, and involvement of coordinators and paramedics in patient care. These changes were associated with unintended, positive consequences for staff, namely, feeling heard, experience of meaningfulness, and positive attitudes toward virtual care. This study advances research on reconfiguration of roles following implementation of new practices using digital tools, virtual work interactions, and at-home care delivery.

Emergency Departments' Uptake of Telehealth for Stroke Versus Pediatric Care: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth for emergency stroke care delivery (telestroke) has had widespread adoption, enabling many hospitals to obtain stroke center certification. Telehealth for pediatric emergency care has been less widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine whether differences in policy or certification requirements contributed to differential uptake of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth. We hypothesized that differences in financial incentives, based on differences in patient volume, prehospital routing policy, and certification requirements, contributed to differential emergency department (ED) adoption of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth. METHODS: We used the 2016 National Emergency Department Inventory-USA to identify EDs that were using telestroke and pediatric telehealth services. We surveyed all EDs using pediatric telehealth services (n=339) and a convenience sample of the 1758 EDs with telestroke services (n=366). The surveys characterized ED staffing, transfer patterns, reasons for adoption, and frequency of use. We used bivariate comparisons to examine differences in reasons for adoption and use between EDs with only telestroke services, only pediatric telehealth services, or both. RESULTS: Of the 442 EDs surveyed, 378 (85.5%) indicated use of telestroke, pediatric telehealth, or both. EDs with both services were smaller in bed size, volume, and ED attending coverage than those with only telestroke services or only pediatric telehealth services. EDs with telestroke services reported more frequent use, overall, than EDs with pediatric telehealth services: 14.1% (45/320) of EDs with telestroke services reported weekly use versus 2.9% (8/272) of EDs with pediatric telehealth services (P<.001). In addition, 37 out of 272 (13.6%) EDs with pediatric telehealth services reported no consults in the past year. Across applications, the most frequently selected reason for adoption was "improving level of clinical care." Policy-related reasons (ie, for compliance with outside certification or standards or for improving ED performance on quality metrics) were rarely indicated as the most important, but these reasons were indicated slightly more often for telestroke adoption (12/320, 3.8%) than for pediatric telehealth adoption (1/272, 0.4%; P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: In 2016, more US EDs had telestroke services than pediatric telehealth services; among EDs with the technology, consults were more frequently made for stroke than for pediatric patients. The most frequently indicated reason for adoption among all EDs was related to clinical care.

Crossing the Virtual Chasm: Practical Considerations for Rethinking Curriculum, Competency, and Culture in the Virtual Care Era.

Virtual care, introduced previously as a replacement for in-person visits, is now being integrated into clinical care delivery models to complement in-person visits. The COVID-19 pandemic sped up this process. The rapid uptake of virtual care at the start of the pandemic prevented educators from taking deliberate steps to design the foundational elements of the related learning environment, including workflow, competencies, and assessment methods. Educators must now pursue an informed and purposeful approach to design a curriculum and implement virtual care in the learning environment. Engaging learners in virtual care offers opportunities for novel ways to teach and assess their performance and to effectively integrate technology such that it is accessible and equitable. It also offers opportunities for learners to demonstrate professionalism in a virtual environment, to obtain a patient's history incorporating interpersonal and communication skills, to interact with multiple parties during a patient encounter (patient, caregiver, translator, telepresenter, faculty member), to enhance physical examination techniques via videoconferencing, and ideally to optimize demonstrations of empathy through "webside manner." Feedback and assessment, important features of training in any setting, must be timely, specific, and actionable in the new virtual care environment. Recognizing the importance of integrating virtual care into education, leaders from across the United States convened on September 10, 2020, for a symposium titled, "Crossing the Virtual Chasm: Rethinking Curriculum, Competency, and Culture in the Virtual Care Era." In this article, the authors share recommendations that came out of this symposium for the implementation of educational tools in the evolving virtual care environment. They present core competencies, assessment tools, precepting workflows, and technology to optimize the delivery of high-quality virtual care that is safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.

Telehealth in emergency medicine: A consensus conference to map the intersection of telehealth and emergency medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth has the potential to significantly change the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) and has rapidly expanded in EM during the COVID pandemic; however, it is unclear how EM should intersect with telehealth. The field lacks a unified research agenda with priorities for scientific questions on telehealth in EM. METHODS: Through the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's annual consensus conference, experts in EM and telehealth created a research agenda for the topic. The multiyear process used a modified Delphi technique to develop research questions related to telehealth in EM. Research questions were excluded from the final research agenda if they did not meet a threshold of at least 80% of votes indicating "important" or "very important." RESULTS: Round 1 of voting included 94 research questions, expanded to 103 questions in round 2 and refined to 36 questions for the final vote. Consensus occurred with a final set of 24 important research questions spanning five breakout group topics. Each breakout group domain was represented in the final set of questions. Examples of the questions include: "Among underserved populations, what are mechanisms by which disparities in emergency care delivery may be exacerbated or ameliorated by telehealth" (health care access) and "In what situations should the quality and safety of telehealth be compared to in-person care and in what situations should it be compared to no care" (quality and safety). CONCLUSION: The primary finding from the process was the breadth of gaps in the evidence for telehealth in EM and telehealth in general. Our consensus process identified priority research questions for the use of and evaluation of telehealth in EM to fill the current knowledge gaps. Support should be provided to answer the research questions to guide the evidenced-based development of telehealth in EM.

Assessing Clinical Skills Via Telehealth Objective Standardized Clinical Examination: Feasibility, Acceptability, Comparability, and Educational Value.

Introduction: In March 2020, students' in-person clinical assessments paused due to COVID-19. The authors adapted the June Objective Standardized Clinical Examination (OSCE) to a telehealth OSCE to preserve live faculty observation of students' skills and immediate feedback dialogue between students, standardized patients, and faculty members. The authors assessed students' reactions and comparative performance. Materials and Methods: OSCE and telehealth educators used draft Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) telehealth competencies to create educational materials and adapt OSCE cases. Students anonymously answered queries about the challenges of the telehealth encounters, confidence in basic telehealth competencies, and educational value of the experience. Cohort-level performance data were compared between the January in-person and June telehealth OSCEs. Results: One hundred sixty students participated in 29 Zoom® two-case telehealth OSCEs, equaling 58 h of assessment time. Survey response rate: 59%. Students indicated moderate challenge in adapting physical examinations to the telehealth format and indicated it to be cognitively challenging. Confidence in telehealth competencies was rated "moderate" to "very," but was most pronounced for the technical aspects of telehealth, rather than safety engagement with a patient. Although authors found no significant difference in cohort-level performance in total scores and history-taking between the OSCEs, physical examination and communication scores differed between the two assessments. Discussion: It was feasible to adapt a standardized OSCE to a telehealth format when in-person clinical skills assessment was impossible. Students rated this necessary innovation positively, and it adequately assessed foundational clinical skills performance. Conclusion: Given future competency needs in telehealth, we suggest several education and training priorities.

Telehealth Ethics: The Role of Care Partners.

During telehealth encounters, care partners may assist with physical maneuvers or examinations. These care partners may be friends or family members of the patient. There are unique ethical considerations in the use of care partners during telehealth examinations, yet there is limited guidance for such interactions. Evidence-based guidelines should be created to ensure the safety and quality of telehealth encounters when care partners are used.