Outcomes of A Virtual Practice-Tailored Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Interventions are needed to promote utilization of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), an underused opportunity to perform screenings and plan individualized preventive health services. METHOD: Using remote practice redesign and electronic health record (EHR) support, we implemented the Practice-Tailored AWV intervention in 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in 3 small community-based practices. The intervention combines EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches and resources. Outcomes included completion of AWV and fulfillment of recommended preventive services. RESULTS: At baseline the 3 practices had 1,513 Medicare patients with at least 1 visit in the past 12 months. AWV utilization went from 7% at baseline to 54% 8 months postintervention implementation; advance care planning increased 10.7% (from 7.9% to 18.6%); depression screening increased 16.3% (from 51.7% to 68.0%); and alcohol misuse screening increased 17.3% (from 42.6% to 59.9%). Every individual preventive health service was received more often by patients with an AWV than those without. At the patient level, fulfillment of all eligible preventive services (of a maximum of 12 evaluated) went from 47.5% to 53.8% (P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with AWVs completed a greater percentage of their total recommended preventive health services than those without an AWV. CONCLUSION: Virtual implementation of an intervention that combined EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches increased AWV and preventive services utilization in Medicare patients. Given the success of this intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (when practices had many competing demands), greater consideration should be given to delivering future interventions virtually.

External Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Prognostic Tools.

Our objective was to externally validate 2 simple risk scores for mortality among a mostly inpatient population with COVID-19 in Canada (588 patients for COVID-NoLab and 479 patients for COVID-SimpleLab). The mortality rates in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for COVID-NoLab were 1.1%, 9.6%, and 21.2%, respectively. The mortality rates for COVID-SimpleLab were 0.0%, 9.8%, and 20.0%, respectively. These values were similar to those in the original derivation cohort. The 2 simple risk scores, now successfully externally validated, offer clinicians a reliable way to quickly identify low-risk inpatients who could potentially be managed as outpatients in the event of a bed shortage. Both are available online (https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/covid_nolab/ and https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/COVID-SimpleLab/).

Development and Validation of a Two-Step Predictive Risk Stratification Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 In-hospital Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Patients: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients. Measurements and Main Results: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79-0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score. Conclusions: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.

A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physicians' Experiences With Telemedicine During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices rapidly adopted telemedicine visits because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but information on physician perspectives about these visits is lacking. METHODS: Fifteen semistructured interviews with practicing primary care physicians and physicians-in-training from a Southern California academic health system and group-model health maintenance organization were conducted to assess physician perspectives regarding the benefits and challenges of telemedicine. RESULTS: Physicians indicated that telemedicine improved patient access to care by providing greater convenience, although some expressed concern that certain groups of vulnerable patients were unable to navigate or did not possess the technology required to participate in telemedicine visits. Physicians noted that telemedicine visits offered more time for patient counseling, opportunities for better medication reconciliations, and the ability to see and evaluate patient home environments and connect with patient families. Challenges existed when visits required a physical examination. Physicians were very concerned about the loss of personal connections and touch, which they believed diminished expected rituals that typically strengthen physician-patient relationships. Physicians also observed that careful consideration to physician workflows may be needed to avoid physician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians reported that telemedicine visits offer new opportunities to improve the quality of patient care but noted changes to their interactions with patients. Many of these changes are positive, but it remains to be seen whether others such as lack of physical examination and loss of physical presence and touch adversely influence provider-patient communication, patient willingness to disclose concerns that may affect their care, and, ultimately, patient health outcomes.

Development and Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Risk Scores for Prognosis in 6 US Health Systems.

PURPOSE: Develop and validate simple risk scores based on initial clinical data and no or minimal laboratory testing to predict mortality in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. METHODS: We gathered clinical and initial laboratory variables on consecutive inpatients with COVID-19 who had either died or been discharged alive at 6 US health centers. Logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model using no laboratory values (COVID-NoLab) and one adding tests available in many outpatient settings (COVID-SimpleLab). The models were converted to point scores and their accuracy evaluated in an internal validation group. RESULTS: We identified 1340 adult inpatients with complete data for nonlaboratory parameters and 741 with complete data for white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, c-reactive protein (CRP), and serum creatinine. The COVID-NoLab risk score includes age, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation and identified risk groups with 0.8%, 11.4%, and 40.4% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.803). The COVID-SimpleLab score includes age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, WBC, CRP, serum creatinine, and comorbid asthma and identified risk groups with 1.0%, 9.1%, and 29.3% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.833). CONCLUSIONS: Because they use simple, readily available predictors, developed risk scores have potential applicability in the outpatient setting but require prospective validation before use.

Using Virtual Visits to Care for Primary Care Patients With COVID-19 Symptoms.

PURPOSE: Examine use of office resources by primary care patients who were initially evaluated through telehealth, telephone, or in-person encounters. METHODS: Retrospective electronic health record review on patients seen in March 2020 for evaluation of potential COVID-19 symptoms, to assess the total number of interactions with physicians and office staff. RESULTS: Of 202 patients, 89 (44%) had initial telehealth, 55 (27%) telephone, and 52 (26%) in-person encounters. Patients initially evaluated through telehealth, telephone, and in-person encounters had a mean of 6.1 (S.D. = 3.7), 5.2 (S.D. = 3.6), and 4.5 (S.D. = 3.0) total interactions with the office, respectively (P = .03), and 9%, 12.7%, and 19.2%, respectively, had a subsequent in-person or emergency department visit (P = .22). Multivariable analysis showed no differences in number of office interactions based on initial visit type; older patients (95% CI = 0.00-0.07) and those with subjective fevers (95% CI = 1.01-3.01) or shortness of breath (95% CI = 0.23-2.28) had more interactions with the office. CONCLUSION: Primary care providers used virtual visits to care for most patients presenting with potential COVID-19 symptoms, with many patients choosing telephone over telehealth visits. Virtual visits can successfully limit patient exposure to other people, and consideration could be given to increasing its use for patients with potential symptoms of COVID-19.