Conflict in the EMS Workforce: An Analysis of an Open-Ended Survey Question Reveals a Complex Assemblage of Stress, Burnout, and Pandemic-Related Factors Influencing Well-Being.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians provide patient care within a high-stakes, unpredictable, and complex work environment in which conflict is inevitable. Our objective was to explore the extent to which added stressors of the pandemic exacerbated EMS workplace conflict. We administered our survey to a sample of U.S. nationally certified EMS clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2022. Out of 1881 respondents, 46% (n = 857) experienced conflict and 79% (n = 674) provided free-text descriptions of their experience. The responses were analyzed for themes using qualitative content analysis, and they were then sorted into codes using word unit sets. Code counts, frequencies, and rankings were tabulated, enabling quantitative comparisons of the codes. Of the fifteen codes to emerge, stress (a precursor of burnout) and burnout-related fatigue were the key factors contributing to EMS workplace conflict. We mapped our codes to a conceptual model guided by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report on using a systems approach to address clinician burnout and professional well-being to explore implications for addressing conflict within that framework. Factors attributed to conflict mapped to all levels of the NASEM model, lending empirical legitimacy to a broad systems approach to fostering worker well-being. Our findings lead us to propose that active surveillance (enhanced management information and feedback systems) of frontline clinicians' experiences during public health emergencies could increase the effectiveness of regulations and policies across the healthcare system. Ideally, the contributions of the occupational health discipline would become a mainstay of a sustained response to promote ongoing worker well-being. The maintenance of a robust EMS workforce, and by extension the health professionals in its operational sphere, is unquestionably essential to our preparedness for the likelihood that pandemic threats may become more commonplace.

Making It Work: Physicians' Perspectives on the Rapid Transition to Telemedicine.

Background: Telemedicine is a major pillar in the health care system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the rapid implementation of telemedicine is not without its challenges. We examined the strategies primary care physicians (PCPs) used to make the transition to telemedicine during the pandemic. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted to explore the perspectives of PCPs working at a Midwestern Academic Medical Center (AMC) who used telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semistructured interviews with 20 PCPs were conducted 3 months following the rapid increase in the use of telemedicine across the AMC. Interview questions asked about physicians' challenges using telemedicine, the changes they had to make to use telemedicine, and what had helped them deliver care through telemedicine. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and rigorously analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. Results: According to PCPs, a successful transition to telemedicine involved three key elements: (1) maintaining flexibility in the context of constant change; (2) recognizing the need to upgrade their home office spaces; and (3) seeking opportunities to continue collaborating and sharing knowledge with peers. These strategies enabled physicians to rapidly pivot to deliver care through telemedicine when stay-at-home orders took effect. Physicians also described how frequent leadership communication and the rapid dissemination of telemedicine training supported their use of this care modality. Conclusions: Successful adoption of telemedicine requires that physicians adapt their care delivery practices. Considering these facilitators of telemedicine use can help both physicians and health care organizations with this important transition.

Perspectives of Volunteer Firefighters during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stumbling Blocks and Silver Linings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the lives of almost every individual in every nation, with numbers of infections continuing to grow. Across these nations, first responders are essential in their roles addressing emergencies, despite their risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the course of their work. We sought to understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of volunteer firefighters in the United States, an understudied group of these first responders. Interviews were conducted with volunteer firefighters between September and November 2021. Interviews were analyzed using deductive dominant thematic analysis. Thirty-three firefighters were interviewed who had an average of 22 years of service and a mean age of 52 years. Interviewees described pandemic-related challenges including the fear of COVID exposure and frustrations with work and personal relationships. They also identified unexpected work-related benefits including a deepened commitment to serve and improvements to training and safety. Further, some volunteers noted personal benefits such as developing stronger connections with others, having a new outlook on life, and observing goodwill. Our findings provide insight into the multifaceted and complex impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volunteer firefighters.

COVID-19 Booster Uptake among First Responders and Their Household Members May Be Lower than Anticipated.

(1) Background: COVID-19 vaccination status varies widely among law enforcement and emergency medical services professionals. Though at high risk of exposure, these first responders have demonstrated significant vaccine hesitancy, with only 70% reportedly vaccinated. We sought to understand whether similar vaccine hesitancy exists for first responders and their household contacts around COVID-19 boosters. (2) Methods: In a prospective longitudinal cohort of first responders and their household contacts, survey data was collected, including demographics, medical history, COVID-19 exposure risks, and vaccination and/or booster status. The statistical analysis focused on primary vaccination and booster rates of both the first responders and their household contacts. (3) Results: Across 119 study participants, 73% reported having received some combination of vaccine and/or booster, and 26% were unvaccinated. Vaccinated individuals were older, reported less prior exposure to COVID-19 and had more comorbidities. Only 23% reported having received a COVID-19 booster. Pairing of the data for household contacts demonstrated a 60% agreement to receive primary vaccination but only a 20% agreement for boosters within households. (4) Conclusions: This study provides insight into the vaccination and booster rates of first responders and household contacts. Focused efforts to enhance vaccinations is essential for the protection and maintenance of this critical workforce.

Doctoring from home: Physicians' perspectives on the advantages of remote care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, stay-at-home orders as well as shortages of personal protective equipment forced primary care physicians (PCPs) to transition rapidly from in-person visits to telehealth. While telehealth expanded extensively in a short period of time, research about the consequences of the shift to remote care is lacking. The objective of this qualitative study was to examine how telehealth benefited PCPs and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From July to August 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs associated with a single academic medical center to examine their perspectives about delivering care remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: PCPs identified several benefits of remote care delivery for both physicians and patients. They indicated that (1) patients were reassured that they could receive safe and timely care, (2) remote visits were convenient for patients, (3) patients were comfortable receiving care at home, and (4) video visits enhanced patient- and family-centered care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants also noted that (1) telehealth accommodated working from home, (2) physicians were equitably reimbursed for telehealth visits, and that (3) telehealth promoted physician work-life balance. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provides preliminary evidence that PCPs and their patients had positive experiences with remote care during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians identified opportunities by which telehealth could enhance the delivery of patient-centered care by allowing them to see patients' home environments and to engage family members and caregivers during telehealth visits. More research is needed to understand how to sustain these benefits beyond the global COVID-19 pandemic and ensure patients' needs are met.

Silver Linings Around the Increased Use of Telehealth After the Emergence of COVID-19: Perspectives From Primary Care Physicians.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: With the emergence of COVID-19, the transition from in-person care to widespread use of telehealth raised many well-described challenges for primary care providers (PCP). The purpose of this study was to improve understanding of how this increased use of telehealth impacted PCPs in positive ways, and specifically focus on any "silver linings" of using telehealth. METHODS: We interviewed PCPs working at a large Midwestern academic medical center between June and July 2020 and asked for perspectives about the use of telehealth during the pandemic. Verbatim transcripts were coded and analyzed using deductive dominant thematic analysis that allowed for categorization of data and identification of emergent themes. RESULTS: PCPs noted 3 main benefits of using telehealth: (1) demonstrated remote care was feasible, (2) patients expressed gratitude; and (3) payers fully reimbursed for telehealth visits. PCPs also described "silver linings" they perceived for patients: (1) easier access to care, (2) more convenient follow-up care, and (3) ability to get quick specialty referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Study participants offered encouraging feedback regarding the potential for telehealth to offer a convenient and patient-centric alternative to in-person care. As a healthcare delivery mode, telehealth can remove personal and social barriers to care for many patients, but reimbursement parity and more evidence is needed to inform best practices for ongoing telehealth use in primary care. With the continuing use of telehealth, it will be important to monitor health outcomes as well as consider how these modalities may need to be adapted to mitigate potential care disparities.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Teamwork: a Qualitative Study in Two States.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted how primary care physicians (PCPs) and their staff delivered team-based care. OBJECTIVE: To explore PCPs' perspectives about the impact of stay-at-home orders and the increased use of telemedicine on interactions and working relationships with their practice staff during the first 9 months of the pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative research. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included PCPs from family and community medicine, general internal medicine, and pediatrics. APPROACH: One-on-one, semi-structured video interviews with 42 PCPs were conducted between July and December 2020. Physicians were recruited from 30 primary care practices in Massachusetts and Ohio using a combination of purposeful, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview questions focused on work changes and work relationships with other staff members during the pandemic as well as their experiences delivering telemedicine. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. KEY RESULTS: Across respondents and states, the context of the pandemic was reported to have four major impacts on primary care teamwork: (1) staff members' roles were repurposed to support telemedicine; (2) PCPs felt disconnected from staff; (3) PCPs had difficulty communicating with staff; and (4) many PCPs were demoralized during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of in-person contact, and less synchronous communication, negatively impacted PCP-staff teamwork and morale during the pandemic. These challenges further highlight the importance for practice leaders to recognize and attend to clinicians' relational and work-related needs as the pandemic continues.

Examining the Dimensionality of Trust in the Inpatient Setting: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trust in healthcare providers is associated with important outcomes, but has primarily been assessed in the outpatient setting. It is largely unknown how hospitalized patients conceptualize trust in their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the dimensionality of a measure of trust in the inpatient setting. DESIGN: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients (N = 1756; 76% response rate) across six hospitals in the midwestern USA. The sample was randomly split such that approximately one half was used in the EFA, and the other half in the CFA. MAIN MEASURES: The Trust in Physician Scale, adapted for inpatient care. KEY RESULTS: Based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion and parallel analysis, EFAs were inconclusive, indicating that trust may be comprised of either one or two factors in this sample. In follow-up CFAs, a 2-factor model fit best based on a chi-squared difference test (Δχ2 = 151.48(1), p < .001) and a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) difference test (CFI difference = .03). The overall fit for the 2-factor CFA model was good (χ2 = 293.56, df = 43, p < .01; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .081 [90% confidence interval = .072-.090]; TLI = .93; SRMR = .04). Items loaded onto two factors related to cognitive (i.e., whether patients view providers as competent) and affective (i.e., whether patients view that providers care for them) dimensions of trust. CONCLUSIONS: While measures of trust in the outpatient setting have been validated as unidimensional, in the inpatient setting, trust appears to be composed of two factors: cognitive and affective trust. This provides initial evidence that inpatient providers may need to work to ensure patients see them as both competent and caring in order to gain their trust.

Pandemic Experience of First Responders: Fear, Frustration, and Stress.

Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are on the front lines of crises and emergencies, placing them at high risk of COVID-19 infection. A deeper understanding of the challenges facing first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to better support this important workforce. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic, asking about the impact of COVID-19. Data collected from our study interviews revealed that, despite large numbers of COVID-19 infections among the staff of police and fire departments, some-but not all-first responders were concerned about COVID-19. A similar divide existed within this group regarding whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Many first responders reported frustration over COVID-19 information because of inconsistencies across sources, misinformation on social media, and the impact of politics. In addition, first responders described increased stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by factors such as the fear of COVID exposure during emergency responses, concerns about infecting family members, and frustration surrounding new work policies. Our findings provide insight into the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and highlight the importance of providing resources for education about COVID-19 risks and vaccination, as well as for addressing first responders' mental health and well-being.

The COVID-19 vaccine concerns scale: Development and validation of a new measure.

Reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy are multi-faceted and tend to differ from those for general vaccine hesitancy. We developed the COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Scale (CVCS), a self-report measure intended to better understand individuals' concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. We validated the scale using data from a convenience sample of 2,281 emergency medical services providers, a group of professionals with high occupational COVID-19 risk. Measures included the CVCS items, an adapted Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale, a general vaccine hesitancy scale, demographics, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status. The CVCS had high internal consistency reliability (α = .89). A one-factor structure was determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA), resulting in a seven-item scale. The model had good fit (X2[14] = 189.26, p < .001; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .11 [.09, .12], NNFI = .93, SRMR = .03). Moderate Pearson correlations with validated scales of general vaccine hesitancy (r = .71 , p < .001; n = 2144) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (r = .82; p < .001; n = 2279) indicated construct validity. The CVCS predicted COVID-19 vaccination status (B = -2.21, Exp(B) = .11 [95% CI = .09, .13], Nagelkerke R2 = .55), indicating criterion-related validity. In sum, the 7-item CVCS is a reliable and valid self-report measure to examine fears and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. The scale predicts COVID-19 vaccination status and can be used to inform efforts to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

An Opportunity to Understand Concerns about COVID-19 Vaccination: Perspectives from EMS Professionals.

Some healthcare professionals, including emergency medical service (EMS) professionals, remain hesitant about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. This study sought to understand EMS professionals' perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using open-ended comments from a national survey deployed electronically to over 19,000 EMS professionals in April of 2021, we examined perspectives about acceptance of and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. Survey comments revealed differences in perspectives between vaccinated and unvaccinated EMS professionals regarding their personal role in improving public health through COVID-19 vaccination as well as vaccine benefits and the protection conferred by vaccination. Unvaccinated individuals also expressed concerns over the research and development of the COVID-19 vaccines that led to their decision not to get vaccinated. Individuals who were vaccinated suggested ways to increase uptake of the vaccine including having healthcare professionals serve as leaders for vaccination and educating individuals about COVID-19 vaccination through credible resources. Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge to achieving herd immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, even among healthcare professionals. Understanding the perspectives of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated can help direct strategies to reduce confusion and concerns. The perspectives of vaccinated individuals may also be valuable in identifying opportunities to promote vaccination in the professional setting.

Even Superheroes Need Rest: A Guide to Facilitating Recovery from Work for Health-care Workers during COVID-19 and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic burdens health-care workers (HCWs) worldwide. Amid high-stress conditions and unprecedented needs for crisis management, organizations face the grand challenge of supporting the mental health and well-being of their HCWs. The current literature on mental health and well-being primarily focuses on improving personal resilience among HCWs. However, this puts the responsibility for coping with COVID-19-related stress almost fully on the individual. This chapter discusses an important alternative framing of this issue - how health-care organizations (HCOs) can facilitate recovery from work processes (i.e., returning to a baseline level by engaging in nonwork activities after work) for their workers. Based on a narrative review of the occupational health psychology literature, we provide practical strategies for supporting the four key recovery experiences of detachment, control, mastery, and relaxation, as well as present general recommendations about how to promote recovery. These strategies can help HCOs facing the grand challenge of sustaining worker well-being and functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as during future pandemics and for workers facing high work pressure in general.

Examining Patients' Capacity to Use Patient Portals: Insights for Telehealth.

BACKGROUND: The increase in telehealth in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlights the need to understand patients' capacity to utilize this care modality. Patient portals are a tool whose use requires similar resources and skills as those required for telehealth. Patients' capacity to use patient portals may therefore provide insight regarding patients' readiness and capacity to use telehealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine factors related to patients' capacity to use a patient portal and test the impact of these factors on patients' portal use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Using data from a large-scale pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient portal use, 1081 hospitalized patients responded to survey items that were then mapped onto the 4 dimensions of the Engagement Capacity Framework: self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities. MEASURES: The outcome variable was frequency of outpatient portal use. We evaluated associations between Engagement Capacity Framework dimensions and patient portal use, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients with fewer resources, fewer capabilities, lower willingness, and lower overall capacity to use patient portals used the portal less; in contrast, those with lower perceived self-efficacy used the portal more. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight differences in patients' capacity to use patient portals, which provide an initial understanding of factors that may influence the use of telehealth and offer important guidance in efforts to support patients' telehealth use. Offering patients training tailored to the use of telehealth tools may be particularly beneficial.

COVID-19 Vaccinations in EMS Professionals: Prevalence and Predictors.

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Telehealth challenges during COVID-19 as reported by primary healthcare physicians in Quebec and Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven primary healthcare (PHC) providers to use telehealth as an alternative to traditional face-to-face consultations. Providing telehealth that meets the needs of patients in a pandemic has presented many challenges for PHC providers. The aim of this study was to describe the positive and negative implications of using telehealth in one Canadian (Quebec) and one American (Massachusetts) PHC setting during the COVID-19 pandemic as reported by physicians. METHODS: We conducted 42 individual semi-structured video interviews with physicians in Quebec (N = 20) and Massachusetts (N = 22) in 2020. Topics covered included their practice history, changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the advantages and challenges of telehealth. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis was carried out to identify implications of delivering care via telehealth. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified, each with positive and negative implications: 1) access for patients; 2) efficiency of care delivery; 3) professional impacts; and 4) relational dimensions of care. For patients' access, positive implications referred to increased availability of services; negative implications involved barriers due to difficulties with access to and use of technologies. Positive implications for efficiency were related to improved follow-up care; negative implications involved difficulties in diagnosing in the absence of direct physical examination and non-verbal cues. For professional impacts, positive implications were related to flexibility (teleworking, more availability for patients) and reimbursement, while negative implications were related to technological limitations experienced by both patients and practitioners. For relational dimensions, positive implications included improved communication, as patients were more at ease at home, and the possibility of gathering information from what could be seen of the patient's environment; negative implications were related to concerns around maintaining the therapeutic relationship and changes in patients' engagement and expectations. CONCLUSION: Ensuring that health services provision meets patients' needs at all times calls for flexibility in care delivery modalities, role shifting to adapt to virtual care, sustained relationships with patients, and interprofessional collaboration. To succeed, these efforts require guidelines and training, as well as careful attention to technological barriers and interpersonal relationship needs.

Physician Perspectives about Telemedicine: Considering the Usability of Telemedicine in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Use of telemedicine in pediatric gastroenterology has increased dramatically in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The goal of this study was to systematically assess the usability of telemedicine in the field of pediatric gastroenterology. METHODS: The previously validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire was distributed to physician pediatric gastroenterologist members of North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition. Physician demographic and practice characteristics were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive, linear mixed-effect, and ordinary least squares regression methods. RESULTS: One hundred sixty pediatric gastroenterologists completed the survey. The majority were from academic practice (77%) with experience ranging from trainee (11%) to over 20 years of clinical practice (34%). Most (82%) had no experience with telemedicine before the pandemic. The average usability score (scale 1-5) was 3.87 (σ = 0.67) with the highest domain in the usefulness of telemedicine (µâ€Š= 4.29, σ = 0.69) and physician satisfaction (µâ€Š= 4.13, σ = 0.79) and the lowest domain in reliability (µâ€Š= 3.02, σ = 0.87). When comparing trainees to attending physicians, trainees' responses were almost one point lower on satisfaction with telemedicine (trainee effect = -0.97, Bonferroni adjusted 95% confidence interval = -1.71 to -0.23). CONCLUSION: Pediatric gastroenterologists who responded to the survey reported that the technology for telemedicine was usable, but trainees indicated lower levels of satisfaction when compared to attending physicians. Future study is needed to better understand user needs and the impacts of telemedicine on providers with different levels are experience to inform efforts to promote implementation and use of telemedicine beyond the pandemic.

Identifying Opportunities to Strengthen the Public Health Informatics Infrastructure: Exploring Hospitals' Challenges with Data Exchange.

Policy Points Even though most hospitals have the technological ability to exchange data with public health agencies, the majority continue to experience challenges. Most challenges are attributable to the general resources of public health agencies, although workforce limitations, technology issues such as a lack of data standards, and policy uncertainty around reporting requirements also remain prominent issues. Ongoing funding to support the adoption of technology and strengthen the development of the health informatics workforce, combined with revising the promotion of the interoperability scoring approach, will likely help improve the exchange of electronic data between hospitals and public health agencies. CONTEXT: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted significant barriers in the exchange of essential information between hospitals and local public health agencies. Thus it remains important to clarify the specific issues that hospitals may face in reporting to public health agencies to inform focused approaches to improve the information exchange for the current pandemic as well as ongoing public health activities and population health management. METHODS: This study uses cross-sectional data of acute-care, nonfederal hospitals from the 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Information Technology supplement. Guided by the technology-organization-environment framework, we coded the responses to a question regarding the challenges that hospitals face in submitting data to public health agencies by using content analysis according to the type of challenge (i.e., technology, organization, or environment), responsible entity (i.e., hospital, public health agency, vendor, multiple), and the specific issue described. We used multivariable logistic and multinomial regression to identify characteristics of hospitals associated with experiencing the types of challenges. FINDINGS: Our findings show that of the 2,794 hospitals in our analysis, 1,696 (61%) reported experiencing at least one challenge in reporting health data to a public health agency. Organizational issues were the most frequently reported type of challenge, noted by 1,455 hospitals. The most common specific issue, reported by 1,117 hospitals, was the general resources of public health agencies. An advanced EHR system and participation in a health information exchange both decreased the likelihood of not reporting experiencing a challenge and increased the likelihood of reporting an organizational challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform policy recommendations such as improving data standards, increasing funding for public health agencies to improve their technological capabilities, offering workforce training programs, and increasing clarity of policy specifications and reporting. These approaches can improve the exchange of information between hospitals and public health agencies.

Could Telehealth Improve Equity During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many physicians and health care systems have shifted to providing care via telehealth as much as possible. Although necessary to control spread of the virus and preserve personal protective equipment, this shift highlights existing disparities in access and care. Patients without the skills and tools to access telehealth services may increase their risk of exposure by seeking care in person or may delay care entirely. We know that patients need internet access, devices capable of visual communication, and the skills to use these devices to experience the full benefits of telehealth, yet we also know that disparities are present in each of these areas. Currently, federal programs have given physicians greater flexibility in providing care remotely and have expanded internet access for vulnerable patients to promote telehealth services. However, these changes are temporary and it is uncertain which will remain when the pandemic is over. Family medicine physicians have an important role to play in identifying and addressing these disparities and facilitating more equitable care moving forward.

Addressing evolving patient concerns around telehealth in the COVID-19 era.

With a rapid shift to telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians, health care organizations, and policy makers must consider and address patients' evolving needs, concerns, and expectations.

Management practices for leaders to promote infection prevention: Lessons from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is critical to reduce preventable deaths and healthcare costs. Variable success with HAI prevention efforts has suggested that management practices are critical to support clinical infection prevention practices. This study examined hospital leaders' management practices around the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) to identify actions that leaders can take to promote HAI prevention efforts. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 420 key informants, including managers and frontline staff, in 18 hospitals across the United States. Interviewees were asked about management practices supporting HAI prevention. We analyzed interview transcripts using rigorous qualitative methods to understand how management practices were operationalized in infection prevention efforts. RESULTS: Across hospitals and interviewees, three management practices were characterized as important facilitators of HAI prevention: (1) engagement of executive leadership; (2) information sharing; and (3) manager coaching. We found that visible executive leadership, efficient communication, and frequent opportunities to provide and promote learning from feedback were perceived to promote and sustain HAI prevention efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into management practices for leaders that support successful HAI prevention. In practice, these tactics may need to be adjusted to accommodate the current restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to maintain HAI prevention efforts as a priority.