Be in the Digital Room Where it Happens, Part II: Social Media for Neurology Educators.

Social media has changed the way we communicate and interact. Unsurprisingly, it has also changed how we teach and learn. Younger generations of learners have transitioned from traditional educational sources to digital ones. Medical educators need to adapt to trends in medical education and develop fluency in the digital methods used by medical learners today. This is part two of a two-part series on social media and digital education in neurology. This article provides an overview of how social media can be used as a teaching tool in medical education and provides an overview in which it is grounded. We offer practical strategies on how social media can promote lifelong learning, educator development, educator support, and foster educator identity with accompanying neurology-specific examples. We also review considerations for incorporating social media into teaching and learning practices and future directions for integrating these tools in neurology education.

Patient Experiences With Ambulatory Telehealth in Neurology: Results of a Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient experiences with rapid implementation of ambulatory telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was performed to characterize the patients' experience with neurology telehealth visits during the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 response. Consecutive patients who completed a telehealth visit were contacted by telephone. Assenting patients completed a survey quantifying satisfaction with the visit followed by a semistructured telephone interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2,280 telehealth visits were performed, and 753 patients (33%) were reached for postvisit feedback. Of these, 47% of visits were by video and 53% by telephone. Satisfaction was high, with 77% of patients reporting that all needs were met, although only 51% would consider telehealth in the future. Qualitative themes were constructed, suggesting that positive patient experiences were associated not only with the elimination of commute time and associated costs but also with a positive physician interaction. Negative patient experiences were associated with the inability to complete the neurologic examination. Overall, patients tended to view telehealth as a tool that should augment, and not replace, in-person visits. CONCLUSION: In ambulatory telehealth, patients valued convenience, safety, and physician relationship. Barriers were observed but can be addressed.

A comparison of telemedicine and in-person neurology visits: what are the factors that patients consider when selecting future visit type?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits. BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Ambulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Across visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.

Rapid Implementation of Outpatient Teleneurology in Rural Appalachia: Barriers and Disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe rapid implementation of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess for disparities in video visit implementation in the Appalachian region of the United States. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients seen in the first 4 weeks of telehealth implementation was identified from the Neurology Ambulatory Practice at a large academic medical center. Telehealth visits defaulted to video, and when unable, phone-only visits were scheduled. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the telehealth visit type: video or phone only. Clinical variables were collected from the electronic medical record including age, sex, race, insurance status, indication for visit, and rural-urban status. Barriers to scheduling video visits were collected at the time of scheduling. Patient satisfaction was obtained by structured postvisit telephone call. RESULTS: Of 1,011 telehealth patient visits, 44% were video and 56% phone only. Patients who completed a video visit were younger (39.7 vs 48.4 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be female (63% vs 55%, p < 0.007), be White or Caucasian (p = 0.024), and not have Medicare or Medicaid insurance (p < 0.001). The most common barrier to scheduling video visits was technology limitations (46%). Although patients from rural and urban communities were equally likely to be scheduled for video visits, patients from rural communities were more likely to consider future telehealth visits (55% vs 42%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rapid implementation of ambulatory telemedicine defaulting to video visits successfully expanded video telehealth. Emerging disparities were revealed, as older, male, Black patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were less likely to complete video visits.

Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States. BACKGROUND: The rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists. METHODS: American Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth. RESULTS: Out of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.