Investigating the Association Between Telemedicine Use and Timely Follow-Up Care After Acute Cardiovascular Hospital Encounters

Background Telemedicine use increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic;however, questions remain as to how telemedicine use impacts care. Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the association of increased telemedicine use on rates of timely follow-up and unplanned readmission after acute cardiovascular hospital encounters. Methods We examined hospital encounters for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia disorders, heart failure (HF), and valvular heart disease from a large U.S., multisite, integrated academic health system among patients with established cardiovascular care within the system. We evaluated 14-day postdischarge follow-up and 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission rates for encounters from the pandemic "steady state” period from May 24, 2020 through December 31, 2020, when telemedicine use was high and compared them to those of encounters from the week-matched period in 2019 (May 26, 2019, through December 31, 2019), adjusting for patient and encounter characteristics. Results The study population included 6,026 hospital encounters. In the pandemic steady-state period, 40% of follow-ups after these encounters were conducted via telemedicine vs 0% during the week-matched period in 2019. Overall, 14-day follow-up rates increased from 41.7% to 44.9% (adjusted difference: +2.0 percentage points [pp], 95% CI: −1.1 to +5.1 pp, P = 0.20). HF encounters experienced the largest improvement from 50.1% to 55.5% (adjusted difference: +6.5 pp, 95% CI: +0.5 to +12.4 pp, P = 0.03). Overall 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission rates fell slightly, from 18.3% to 16.9% (adjusted difference −1.6 pp;95% CI: −4.0 to +0.8 pp, P = 0.20). Conclusions Increased telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with earlier follow-ups, particularly after HF encounters. Readmission rates did not increase, suggesting that the shift to telemedicine did not compromise care quality. Central Illustration

Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinician ambulatory electronic health record use.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic changed clinician electronic health record (EHR) work in a multitude of ways. To evaluate how, we measure ambulatory clinician EHR use in the United States throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We use EHR meta-data from ambulatory care clinicians in 366 health systems using the Epic EHR system in the United States from December 2019 to December 2020. We used descriptive statistics for clinician EHR use including active-use time across clinical activities, time after-hours, and messages received. Multivariable regression to evaluate total and after-hours EHR work adjusting for daily volume and organizational characteristics, and to evaluate the association between messages and EHR time. RESULTS: Clinician time spent in the EHR per day dropped at the onset of the pandemic but had recovered to higher than prepandemic levels by July 2020. Time spent actively working in the EHR after-hours showed similar trends. These differences persisted in multivariable models. In-Basket messages received increased compared with prepandemic levels, with the largest increase coming from messages from patients, which increased to 157% of the prepandemic average. Each additional patient message was associated with a 2.32-min increase in EHR time per day (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Clinicians spent more total and after-hours time in the EHR in the latter half of 2020 compared with the prepandemic period. This was partially driven by increased time in Clinical Review and In-Basket messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement models and workflows for the post-COVID era should account for these demands on clinician time that occur outside the traditional visit.

Provider Teams Outperform Solo Providers In Managing Chronic Diseases And Could Improve The Value Of Care.

Scope-of-practice regulations, including prescribing limits and supervision requirements, may influence the propensity of providers to form care teams. Therefore, policy makers need to understand the effect of both team-based care and provider type on clinical outcomes. We examined how care management and biomarker outcomes after the onset of three chronic diseases differed both by team-based versus solo care and by physician versus nonphysician (that is, nurse practitioner and physician assistant) care. Using 2013-18 deidentified electronic health record data from US primary care practices, we found that provider teams outperformed solo providers, irrespective of team composition. Among solo providers, physicians and nonphysicians exhibited little meaningful difference in performance. As policy makers contemplate scope-of-practice changes, they should consider the effects of not only provider type but also team-based care on outcomes. Interventions that may encourage provider team formation, including scope-of-practice reforms, may improve the value of care.

Assessment of Electronic Health Record Use Between US and Non-US Health Systems.

Importance: Understanding how the electronic health record (EHR) system changes clinician work, productivity, and well-being is critical. Little is known regarding global variation in patterns of use. Objective: To provide insights into which EHR activities clinicians spend their time doing, the EHR tools they use, the system messages they receive, and the amount of time they spend using the EHR after hours. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed the deidentified metadata of ambulatory care health systems in the US, Canada, Northern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania from January 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. All of these organizations used the EHR software from Epic Systems and represented most of Epic Systems's ambulatory customer base. The sample included all clinicians with scheduled patient appointments, such as physicians and advanced practice practitioners. Exposures: Clinician EHR use was tracked by deidentified and aggregated metadata across a variety of clinical activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics for clinician EHR use included time spent on clinical activities, note documentation (as measured by the percentage of characters in the note generated by automated or manual data entry source), messages received, and time spent after hours. Results: A total of 371 health systems were included in the sample, of which 348 (93.8%) were located in the US and 23 (6.2%) were located in other countries. US clinicians spent more time per day actively using the EHR compared with non-US clinicians (mean time, 90.2 minutes vs 59.1 minutes; P < .001). In addition, US clinicians vs non-US clinicians spent significantly more time performing 4 clinical activities: notes (40.7 minutes vs 30.7 minutes; P < .001), orders (19.5 minutes vs 8.75 minutes; P < .001), in-basket messages (12.5 minutes vs 4.80 minutes; P < .001), and clinical review (17.6 minutes vs 14.8 minutes; P = .01). Clinicians in the US composed more automated note text than their non-US counterparts (77.5% vs 60.8% of note text; P < .001) and received statistically significantly more messages per day (33.8 vs 12.8; P < .001). Furthermore, US clinicians used the EHR for a longer time after hours, logging in 26.5 minutes per day vs 19.5 minutes per day for non-US clinicians (P = .01). The median US clinician spent as much time actively using the EHR per day (90.1 minutes) as a non-US clinician in the 99th percentile of active EHR use time per day (90.7 minutes) in the sample. These results persisted after controlling for organizational characteristics, including structure, type, size, and daily patient volume. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that US clinicians compared with their non-US counterparts spent substantially more time actively using the EHR for a wide range of clinical activities or tasks. This finding suggests that US clinicians have a greater EHR burden that may be associated with nontechnical factors, which policy makers and health system leaders should consider when addressing clinician wellness.

Making Doctors Effective Managers and Leaders: A Matter of Health and Well-Being.

The COVID-19 crisis has forced physicians to make daily decisions that require knowledge and skills they did not acquire as part of their biomedical training. Physicians are being called upon to be both managers-able to set processes and structures-and leaders-capable of creating vision and inspiring action. Although these skills may have been previously considered as just nice to have, they are now as central to being a physician as physiology and biochemistry. While traditionally only selected physicians have received management training, either through executive or joint degree programs, the authors argue that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of all physicians learning management and leadership skills. Training should emphasize skills related to interpersonal management, systems management, and communication and planning; be seamlessly integrated into the medical curriculum alongside existing content; and be delivered by existing faculty with leadership experience. While leadership programs, such as the Pediatric Leadership for the Underserved program at the University of California, San Francisco, and the Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program at Mass General Brigham, may include project work, instruction by clinical leaders, and content delivered over time, examples of leadership training that seamlessly blend biomedical and management training are lacking. The authors present the Leader and Leadership Education and Development curriculum used at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, which is woven through 4 years of medical school, as an example of leadership training that approximates many of the principles espoused here. The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched the logistical capabilities of health care systems and the entire United States, revealing that management and leadership skills-often viewed as soft skills-are a matter of life and death. Training all physicians in these skills will improve patient care, the well-being of the health care workforce, and health across the United States.