PPE portraits: patient and clinician experiences at a COVID-19 testing site.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic mandated personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare settings, obscuring clinician faces and expressions, and depersonalizing patient care experiences. PPE Portraits (affixing a clinician's photo to the front of PPE) was first introduced in 2015 during the West Africa Ebola epidemic, and has been shown to help maintain patient-provider connection at times when patients may be fearful, isolated, and unable to identify clinicians caring for them. Objective: To evaluate patient and clinician experiences with PPE Portraits. Study Design: Implementation pilot with mixed methods evaluation. Setting: A drive-thru COVID-19 testing site affiliated with a large academic medical center. Population studied: Patients (n=18) and clinicians (n=6) interviewed in March-April 2020. Clinicians were recruited through convenience sampling. Clinicians answered questions via recorded interviews or email. Patients were interviewed by phone through random sampling stratified by date of service. Patients were sent a post-visit survey. Intervention: Health workers affixed a PPE Portrait in order to connect better with individuals in their care. Outcome Measures: Patient and clinician experiences with PPE Portraits (assessed through inductive coding of qualitative data) and patient experiences with fear (assessed through survey). Results: Patient surveys indicated varying levels of fear, including mild (16%), moderate (66%), and severe (18%). Patients reported that seeing the PPE Portrait was comforting; four patients stated that it did not impact their care because they already trusted the facility. Clinicians corroborated patient sentiments, reporting that the intervention humanized both the testing experience for patients and also the interactions among patients and clinicians. They noted that patients seemed more at ease and that portraits fostered connection and trust, thereby reducing anxiety and fear and signaling to patients that they were being given holistic, optimal care. A majority of clinicians felt this intervention should be replicated, and they recommended having surplus portrait supplies on site to facilitate ad hoc portrait creation. Conclusion: PPE Portraits humanized the COVID-19 testing experiences for patients and clinicians during a time of fear. Clinicians recommended PPE Portraits for other healthcare settings that require PPE. Future research could assess how PPE Portraits promote patient-provider connection and trust.

Developing best practices for PPE Portraits across 25 sites: a systematic assessment of implementation and spread of adaptations using FRAME.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation, a form of modification that aims to improve an intervention's acceptability and sustainability in each context, is essential to successful implementation in some settings. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians have rapidly adapted how they deliver patient care. PPE Portraits are a form of adaptation, whereby health workers affix a postcard size portrait of themselves to the front of their personal protective equipment (PPE) to foster human connection during COVID-19. METHODS: We used the expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME) method to better understand the reasoning behind and results of each adaptation. We hypothesized that using the FRAME in conjunction with design-thinking would lead to emerging best practices and that we would find adaptation similarities across sites. Throughout multiple implementations across 25 institutions, we piloted, tracked, and analyzed adaptations using FRAME and design thinking. For each adaptation, we assessed the stage of implementation, whether the change was planned, decision makers involved, level of delivery impacted, fidelity to original intervention, and the goal and reasoning for adaptation. We added three crucial components to the FRAME: original purpose of the adaptation, unintended consequences, and alternative adaptations. RESULTS: When implementing PPE Portraits across settings, from a local assisted living center's memory unit to a pediatric emergency department, several requests for adaptations arose during early development stages before implementation. Adaptations primarily related to (1) provider convenience and comfort, (2) patient populations, and (3) scale. Providers preferred smaller portraits and rounded (rather than square) laminated edges that could potentially injure a patient. Affixing the portrait with a magnet was rejected given the potential choking hazard the magnetic strip presented for children. Other adaptations, related to ease of dissemination, included slowing the process down during early development and providing buttons, which could be produced easily at scale. CONCLUSIONS: The FRAME was used to curate the reasoning for each adaptation and to inform future dissemination. We look forward to utilizing FRAME including our additions and design thinking, to build out a range of PPE Portrait best practices with accompanying costs and benefits.

Rapid Implementation of Video Visits in Neurology During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. METHODS: Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. CONCLUSIONS: Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.