Virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family-centered rounds is recognized as a best practice for hospitalized children, but it has only been possible for children whose families can physically be at the bedside during hospital rounds. The use of telehealth to bring a family member virtually to the child's bedside during hospital rounds is a promising solution. We aim to evaluate the impact of virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit on parental and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will randomize families of hospitalized infants to have the option to use telehealth for virtual hospital rounds (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention-arm families will also have the option to participate in hospital rounds in-person or to not participate in hospital rounds. All eligible infants who are admitted to this single-site neonatal intensive care unit during the study period will be included. Eligibility requires that there be an English-proficient adult parent or guardian. We will measure participant-level outcome data to test the impact on family-centered rounds attendance, parent experience, family-centered care, parent activation, parent health-related quality of life, length of stay, breastmilk feeding, and neonatal growth. Additionally, we will conduct a mixed methods implementation evaluation using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will increase our understanding about virtual family-centered hospital rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit. The mixed methods implementation evaluation will enhance our understanding about the contextual factors that influence the implementation and rigorous evaluation of our intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05762835. Status: Not yet recruiting. First posted: March 10, 2023; last update posted: March 10, 2023.

Patient Satisfaction with Care Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey Scores for In-Person and Telehealth Encounters at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: Previous research has demonstrated high patient satisfaction with telehealth encounters. The objective of this study was to compare patient satisfaction scores regarding their physician using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys between in-person and telehealth outpatient encounters during the pandemic at a large academic health center. Methods: We analyzed CAHPS patient satisfaction survey data within the UC Davis Health system between August 2020 and February 2022. The questions analyzed pertained to patients' satisfaction with their care provider; whether they felt included in discussions, would recommend their physician, received clear explanations, and that their concerns were heard. Using logistic regression models adjusting for confounders, we compared CAHPS care provider top box scores-a score of 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale-for 5 survey items. Results: Survey results from 76,687 (84.2%) in-person encounters and 14,404 (15.8%) telehealth encounters were evaluated. The odds of a telehealth patient giving a top box score for whether they would recommend their care provider to others were 0.97 those of an in-person patient (95% confidence interval [0.87-1.06]; p = 0.494). Similarly, there was no significant difference in odds of giving a top box score between telehealth and in-person patients for the other four questions analyzed. Discussion: Our findings indicate that patient experience and care provider rankings for in-person care and telehealth care are comparable across a variety of specialties and conditions at a large academic health center. Future studies should investigate patient satisfaction with in-person and telehealth encounters by diagnosis and specialty.

Environmental Impact of Ambulatory Telehealth Use by a Statewide University Health System During COVID-19.

Objective: Several studies before the COVID-19 pandemic documented the positive impact of telehealth on patients' travel distance, time, out-of-pocket costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this study was to calculate these outcomes following the increased use of ambulatory telehealth services within five large University of California (UC) health care systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We analyzed retrospective ambulatory telehealth data from the five UC health care systems between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Travel distances and time saved were calculated using the round-trip distance a patient would have traveled for an in-person visit, while cost savings were calculated using Internal Revenue Services' (IRS) 2022 standard mileage reimbursement rates. In addition, we estimated the injuries and fatalities avoided using the national motor vehicle crash data. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using the 2021 national average vehicle emission rates. Results: More than 3 million (n = 3,043,369) ambulatory telehealth encounters were included in the study. The total round-trip distance, travel time, and travel cost saved from these encounters were 53,664,391 miles, 1,788,813 h, and $33,540,244, respectively. These translated to 17.6 miles, 35.3 min, and $11.02 per encounter. By using telehealth, 42.4 crash-related injuries and 0.7 fatalities were avoided. The use of telehealth for ambulatory services during this time eliminated 21465.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 14.1 metric tons of total hydrocarbons, 212.3 metric tons of exhaust carbon monoxide, and 9.3 metric tons of exhaust nitrogen oxide emissions. Conclusions: Telehealth use for ambulatory services in a statewide academic Health System during COVID-19 had a positive impact on patient travel distance, time and costs, injuries and fatalities in motor vehicle accidents, and greenhouse gas emissions. These significant advantages of telehealth should be considered when planning future health services.

Perceptions of Pediatric Endocrinologists and Neurologists on the Drivers of Telehealth Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent and drivers of telehealth use variation across clinicians within the same pediatric subspecialties. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, 8 pediatric medical groups in California shared data for eleven subspecialties. We calculated the proportion of total visits delivered via telehealth by medical group for each subspecialty and identified the 8 most common International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnoses for telehealth and in-person visits in endocrinology and neurology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 pediatric endocrinologists and neurologists and applied a positive deviance approach comparing high versus low utilizers to identify factors that influenced their level of telehealth use. RESULTS: In 2019, medical groups that submitted quantitative data conducted 1.8 million visits with 549,306 unique pediatric patients. For 3 subspecialties, there was relatively little variation in telehealth use across medical groups: urology (mean: 16.5%, range: 9%-23%), orthopedics (mean: 7.2%, range: 2%-14%), and cardiology (mean: 11.2%, range: 2%-24%). The remaining subspecialties, including neurology (mean: 58.6%, range: 8%-93%) and endocrinology (mean: 49.5%, range: 24%-92%), exhibited higher levels of variation. For both neurology and endocrinology, the top diagnoses treated in-person were similar to those treated via telehealth. There was limited consensus on which clinical conditions were appropriate for telehealth. High telehealth utilizers were more comfortable conducting telehealth visits for new patients and often worked in practices with innovations to support telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians perceive that telehealth may be appropriate for a range of clinical conditions when the right supports are available.

Pediatric Telemedicine: Lessons Learned During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Opportunities for Growth.

The accelerated uptake of telemedicine during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in valuable experience and evidence on the delivery of telemedicine for pediatric patients. The pandemic has also highlighted inequities and opportunities for improvement. This review discusses lessons learned during the pandemic, focusing on provider-to-patient virtual encounters. Recent evidence on education and training, developing and adapting clinical workflows, patient assessment and treatment, and family-centered care is reviewed. Opportunities for future research in pediatric telemedicine are discussed, specifically with regard to engaging pediatric patients, improving and measuring access to care, addressing health equity, and expanding the evidence base.

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.

Use of Telehealth Across Pediatric Subspecialties Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The identification of variation in health care is important for quality improvement. Little is known about how different pediatric subspecialties are using telehealth and what is driving variation. Objective: To characterize trends in telehealth use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across pediatric subspecialties and the association of delivery change with no-show rates and access disparities. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, 8 large pediatric medical groups in California collaborated to share aggregate data on telehealth use for 11 pediatric subspecialties from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly in-person and telehealth visits for 11 subspecialties, characteristics of patients participating in in-person and telehealth visits, and no-show rates. Monthly use rates per 1000 unique patients were calculated. To assess changes in no-show rates, a series of linear regression models that included fixed effects for medical groups and calendar month were used. The demographic characteristics of patients served in person during the prepandemic period were compared with those of patients who received in-person and telehealth care during the pandemic period. Results: In 2019, participating medical groups conducted 1.8 million visits with 549 306 unique patients younger than 18 years (228 120 [41.5%] White and 277 167 [50.5%] not Hispanic). A total of 72 928 patients (13.3%) preferred a language other than English, and 250 329 (45.6%) had Medicaid. In specialties with lower telehealth use (cardiology, orthopedics, urology, nephrology, and dermatology), telehealth visits ranged from 6% to 29% of total visits from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. In specialties with higher telehealth use (genetics, behavioral health, pulmonology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and neurology), telehealth constituted 38.8% to 73.0% of total visits. From the prepandemic to the pandemic periods, no-show rates slightly increased for lower-telehealth-use subspecialties (9.2% to 9.4%) and higher-telehealth-use subspecialties (13.0% to 15.3%), but adjusted differences (comparing lower-use and higher-use subspecialties) in changes were not statistically significant (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 6.3 percentage points; P = .15). Patients who preferred a language other than English constituted 6140 in-person visits (22.2%) vs 2707 telehealth visits (11.4%) in neurology (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: There was high variability in adoption of telehealth across subspecialties and in patterns of use over time. The documentation of variation in telehealth adoption can inform evolving telehealth policy for pediatric patients, including the appropriateness of telehealth for different patient needs and areas where additional tools are needed to promote appropriate use.

Telehealth: Opportunities to Improve Access, Quality, and Cost in Pediatric Care.

The use of telehealth technology to connect with patients has expanded significantly over the past several years, particularly in response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This technical report describes the present state of telehealth and its current and potential applications. Telehealth has the potential to transform the way care is delivered to pediatric patients, expanding access to pediatric care across geographic distances, leveraging the pediatric workforce for care delivery, and improving disparities in access to care. However, implementation will require significant efforts to address the digital divide to ensure that telehealth does not inadvertently exacerbate inequities in care. The medical home model will continue to evolve to use telehealth to provide high-quality care for children, particularly for children and youth with special health care needs, in accordance with current and evolving quality standards. Research and metric development are critical for the development of evidence-based best practices and policies in these new models of care. Finally, as pediatric care transitions from traditional fee-for-service payment to alternative payment methods, telehealth offers unique opportunities to establish value-based population health models that are financed in a sustainable manner.

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Paediatric Telemedicine: Rapid Review of User Perspectives.

Background: COVID-19 has brought to the fore an urgent need for secure information and communication technology (ICT) supported healthcare delivery, as the pertinence of infection control and social distancing continues. Telemedicine for paediatric care warrants special consideration around logistics, consent and assent, child welfare and communication that may differ to adult services. There is no systematic evidence synthesis available that outlines the implementation issues for incorporating telemedicine to paediatric services generally, or how users perceive these issues. Methods: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evidence synthesis to identify barriers, facilitators, and documented stakeholder experiences of implementing paediatric telemedicine, to inform the pandemic response. A systematic search was undertaken by a research librarian in MEDLINE for relevant studies. All identified records were blind double-screened by two reviewers. Implementation-related data were extracted, and studies quality appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative findings were analysed thematically and then mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative findings about barriers and facilitators for implementation were narratively synthesised. Results: We identified 27 eligible studies (19 quantitative; 5 mixed-methods, 3 qualitative). Important challenges highlighted from the perspective of the healthcare providers included issues with ICT proficiency, lack of confidence in the quality/reliability of the technology, connectivity issues, concerns around legal issues, increased administrative burden and/or fear of inability to conduct thorough examinations with reliance on subjective descriptions. Facilitators included clear dissemination of the aims of ICT services, involvement of staff throughout planning and implementation, sufficient training, and cultivation of telemedicine champions. Families often expressed preference for in-person visits but those who had tried tele-consultations, lived far from clinics, or perceived increased convenience with technology considered telemedicine more favourably. Concerns from parents included the responsibility of describing their child's condition in the absence of an in-person examination. Discussion: Healthcare providers and families who have experienced tele-consultations generally report high satisfaction and usability for such services. The use of ICT to facilitate paediatric healthcare consultations is feasible for certain clinical encounters and can work well with appropriate planning and quality facilities in place.