Risk of Admission to the Emergency Room/Inpatient Service After a Neurology Telemedicine Visit During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We compared emergency department (ED) and overnight inpatient admission (admission) rates within eight weeks of home-based telemedicine visits during COVID-19 in 2020 with in-person visits (conventional visit) in 2019. This was a quality improvement project prompted by an adverse event after a telemedicine visit. METHODS: We reviewed all completed telemedicine and conventional visits from March 26 to June 1 of 2020 and 2019 to identify patients who required an ED visit or hospital admission within eight weeks after the visit. RESULTS: In 2020, the overall rate of ED visits of hospital admission within eight weeks of a neurology visit was less than 5%. Comparing 2020 with 2019: (1) cohorts were similar for age, payor, state of residence, medical complexity, recommendation for close follow-up, new medications, or new tests ordered; (2) it took longer to present to the ED (by 10 days) or to be hospitalized (by three days); (3) planned admissions were approximately 50% lower; (4) on multivariate analysis, risk factors for any ED/admission included a patient call within seven days before the ED/admission (P = 0.0004) or being seen by an epilepsy specialist (P = 0.02); (5) a presenting complaint of worsening symptoms had a lower odds ratio of subsequent ED visit/admission (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine is safe, with a similar likelihood of ED or hospital admission during the pandemic in 2020 versus before the pandemic in 2019. In 2020, even if patients described worse symptoms at the time of their clinic visit, the odds of ED or hospital admission were lower than in 2019, but those who called after the telemedicine visit were more likely to be seen in ED or require hospitalization.

Quality and Safety Analysis of 2,999 Telemedicine Encounters During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether telemedicine remains safe and of high quality despite rapid expansion of services by comparing telemedicine encounters before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Pre-post study investigating 2,999 telemedicine encounters: February 1, 2020-May 15, 2020, was performed. A total of 2,919 completed visits before and after strict social distancing implementation were analyzed for patient and provider characteristics, encounter characteristics (e.g., history and physical examination), and quality and safety metrics (phone calls ≤ 7 days postvisit, visit-cause-specific hospital admission or mortality ≤ 30 days after visit). Stratified analysis of 3 groups for outcomes (young age, neuromuscular diagnosis, and new encounters) was performed. RESULTS: Patients ranging from 1 month to 33 years of age were seen. Rural patients were less likely to be seen during the pandemic compared with urban patients (8% vs 90%; p < 0.0001); teaching clinic and specialty clinic encounters increased significantly during the pandemic (8% vs 3%; p = 0.005), and documentation of at least 2 systems on examination was noted significantly more frequently during the pandemic (13% vs 7%; p = 0.009). No deaths were reported. There were no differences before/during the pandemic in safety or telemedicine failure metrics within the entire group and high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a markedly and rapidly expanded scope of ambulatory telemedicine care during the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remained a safe and high-quality option for pediatric neurology patients. In addition, populations perceived as high risk for telemedicine (the very young, new patients, and those with neuromuscular diagnoses) can benefit from telemedicine visits, particularly when access to in-person care is limited.