LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO TELEMEDICINE USE FACED BY SAFETY-NET HEALTH CARE SETTINGS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many primary care visits from in-person to remote via telemedicine, including phone and video visits. Health systems face challenges ensuring telemedicine access for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) who are disproportionately seen in safetynet health settings. METHODS: We examined safety-net health settings delivering primary care via telemedicine during the pandemic and participating in a quality improvement collaborative across California (n=43 sites, n=11 interview sites). All sites reported the number and modality of primary care visits (in-person, phone, video), patient demographics, payer mix, and language needs. For qualitative data, we purposively sampled to capture sites representing geographic diversity, a range of telemedicine maturity, and with large populations of patients best served in non-English languages. We then conducted semistructured interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to use and uptake of telemedicine among patients, providers, and staff. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a focus on language-specific considerations, using a mixed inductive/deductive approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: The sites cared for racially and ethnically diverse patients with nearly 75% on Medicaid. Over half of patients (52%) across sites were better served in a language other than English (median: 50%, range 39-83%). All sites experienced an immense increase in the number of telemedicine visits conducted in the six months after March 2020 compared with the six months prior (range: 258-8,273,200%). As of February 2021, most sites provided a minority of telemedicine visits over video compared with phone (median: 5% video, range 0-69%). Interview data showed that most sites mapped telephone visits workflows onto pre-existing infrastructure and resources. Telemedicine vendors provided limited language options and sites faced challenges integrating interpretation services into video visits. Interview respondents were concerned that patients with LEP faced intersecting challenges related to technology access and limited digital literacy, exacerbating language-related barriers to telemedicine. Sites relied on language concordant staff and additional technical support to overcome barriers and facilitate access for LEP patients. CONCLUSIONS: While telemedicine has potential to increase access to primary care, care settings must prioritize language concordance among patients, providers, and staff, and telemedicine platform developers must adapt existing tools to improve their accessibility for patients with LEP.

Collateral damage: the impact on outcomes from cancer surgery of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnostics and surgery have been disrupted by the response of health care services to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Progression of cancers during delay will impact on patients' long-term survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We generated per-day hazard ratios of cancer progression from observational studies and applied these to age-specific, stage-specific cancer survival for England 2013-2017. We modelled per-patient delay of 3 and 6 months and periods of disruption of 1 and 2 years. Using health care resource costing, we contextualise attributable lives saved and life-years gained (LYGs) from cancer surgery to equivalent volumes of COVID-19 hospitalisations. RESULTS: Per year, 94 912 resections for major cancers result in 80 406 long-term survivors and 1 717 051 LYGs. Per-patient delay of 3/6 months would cause attributable death of 4755/10 760 of these individuals with loss of 92 214/208 275 life-years, respectively. For cancer surgery, average LYGs per patient are 18.1 under standard conditions and 17.1/15.9 with a delay of 3/6 months (an average loss of 0.97/2.19 LYGs per patient), respectively. Taking into account health care resource units (HCRUs), surgery results on average per patient in 2.25 resource-adjusted life-years gained (RALYGs) under standard conditions and 2.12/1.97 RALYGs following delay of 3/6 months. For 94 912 hospital COVID-19 admissions, there are 482 022 LYGs requiring 1 052 949 HCRUs. Hospitalisation of community-acquired COVID-19 patients yields on average per patient 5.08 LYG and 0.46 RALYGs. CONCLUSIONS: Modest delays in surgery for cancer incur significant impact on survival. Delay of 3/6 months in surgery for incident cancers would mitigate 19%/43% of LYGs, respectively, by hospitalisation of an equivalent volume of admissions for community-acquired COVID-19. This rises to 26%/59%, respectively, when considering RALYGs. To avoid a downstream public health crisis of avoidable cancer deaths, cancer diagnostic and surgical pathways must be maintained at normal throughput, with rapid attention to any backlog already accrued.