A rapid priority setting exercise combining existing, emergent evidence with stakeholder knowledge identified broad topic uncertainties.

OBJECTIVE: The project aimed to rapidly identify priority topic uncertainties as a first step to identify future systematic review questions of pertinence to key international faecal incontinence (FI) stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and voluntary, community or social enterprise representatives). The paper aim is to share our methods, experience and learning with other groups planning to deliver a rapid priority setting exercise. STUDY DESIGN: An evidence gap map incorporated three evidence streams: emerging evidence identified through horizon scanning; existing evidence identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases; and FI stakeholder insights collected through an international survey. The evidence gap map was presented during an online workshop with stakeholders, where they shared their expertise to expand, refine and rank topic uncertainties using ideation techniques, focus group discussions, consensus techniques and online polling. RESULTS: The multi-step methods used to deliver this priority-setting exercise resulted in identification of broad priority topic uncertainties. The methods appear to have high acceptability and engagement with participants but await full evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This project successfully followed robust methodology, building upon frameworks from published priority setting and evidence gap mapping projects whilst incorporating strong patient and public involvement components.

Trends in Utilization of Electronic Consultations Associated With Patient Payer and Language Among US Academic Medical Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Electronic consultations (eConsultations) are increasingly used to obtain specialist guidance, avoiding unnecessary face-to-face patient visits for certain clinical questions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person care was limited, eConsultations may have helped clinicians obtain specialist input to guide patient care. Objective: To understand how the use of eConsultations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether trends in eConsultation utilization differed based on patient's payer and primary language. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic medical centers in the United States, all participating in the Association of American Colleges Coordinating Optimal Referral Experiences program. Participants included adult patients who had an outpatient visit, referral, or eConsultation during the study period. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to July 28, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the eConsultation proportion of specialty contact, defined as the number of completed eConsultations divided by the sum of the number of completed eConsultations and specialty referrals, expressed as a percentage. eConsultation percentages of specialty contact were further stratified by payer type and language. Payers included commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, self-pay or uninsured, and other. Primary language included English and non-English languages. Results: A total of 14 545 completed eConsultations and 189 776 referrals were included. More eConsultations were completed for English-speaking patients (11 363 eConsultations [95.0%]) than non-English-speaking patients (597 eConsultations [5.0%]). Patients with commercial insurance represented the highest number of completed eConsultations (8848 eConsultations [60.8%]) followed by Medicare (3891 eConsultations [26.8%]), Medicaid (930 eConsultations [6.4%]), other insurance (745 eConsultations [5.1%]), and self-pay or no insurance (131 eConsultations [0.9%]). At the start of the pandemic, across all academic medical centers, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased by 6.21% (95% CI, 4.97%-7.44%; P < .001). When stratified by payer and language, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased at the beginning of the pandemic for both English-speaking patients (change, 6.09% (95% CI, 4.82% to 7.37%; P < .001) and non-English-speaking patients (change, 8.48% [95% CI, 5.79% to 11.16%]; P < .001) and for all payers, except self-pay and uninsured patients (change, -0.21% [95% CI, [-1.35% to 0.92%]; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that eConsultations provided an accessible mechanism for clinicians to receive specialist input when in-person care was limited.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Care partners reading patients' visit notes via patient portals: Characteristics and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Care partners are key members of patients' health care teams, yet little is known about their experiences accessing patient information via electronic portals. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the characteristics and perceptions of care partners who read patients' electronic visit notes. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Focus groups with diverse patients from a community health center provided input into survey development. METHODS: We contacted patient portal users at 3 geographically distinct sites in the US via email in 2017 for an online survey including open ended questions which we qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Respondents chose whether to answer as care partners (N = 874) or patients (N = 28,782). Among care partner respondents, 44% were spouses, 43% children/other family members, and 14% friends/neighbors/other. Both care partners and patients reported that access to electronic notes was very important for promoting positive health behaviors, but care partners' perceptions of importance were consistently more positive than patients' perceptions of engagement behaviors. Open-ended comments included positive benefits such as: help with remembering the plan for care, coordinating care with other doctors, decreasing stress of care giving, improving efficiency of visits, and supporting patients from a geographical distance. They also offered suggestions for improving electronic portal and note experience for care partners such as having a separate log on for care partners; having doctors avoid judgmental language in their notes; and the ability to prompt needed medical care for patients. DISCUSSION: Care partners value electronic access to patients' health information even more than patients. The majority of care partners were family members, whose feedback is important for improving portal design that effectively engages these care team members. PRACTICAL VALUE: Patient care in the time of COVID-19 increasingly requires social distancing which may place additional burden on care partners supporting vulnerable patients. Access to patient notes may promote quality of care by keeping care partners informed, and care partner's input should be used to optimize portal design and electronic access to patient information.