Patient Experience with In-Person and Telehealth Visits Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large Integrated Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Information about telehealth versus in-office visits and how patient experience before compared to during the COVID-19 pandemic is important for healthcare planning. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient experience by visit type and before and during the pandemic. DESIGN: Survey of patients assessing ambulatory care before and during the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 58,500 adult patients (13,928 primary care and 44,581 specialty physician visits) at a large integrated health system with 197 clinics on the west coast of the United States. The majority were female (59%), 55 or older (65%), and non-Hispanic White (55%), and had an in-office visit (87%) while 10% had a tele-video and 3% a phone visit. MAIN MEASURES: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Survey 3.0 doctor communication, care coordination, access, and office staff composites; an overall rating of the doctor; and whether the patient would recommend the doctor to family and friends. KEY RESULTS: Patient experience with telehealth visits was as positive as or more positive than that with traditional office-based visits. Doctor communication on tele-video visits was viewed as slightly more positive than that of in-office or phone visits. Tele-video visits were also slightly more positive than in-office visits for care coordination, overall rating of the doctor, and willingness to recommend to family and friends. Office staff were viewed less positively on the phone than tele-video or in-office visits. Patient experience was similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., on a 0-100 possible range with a higher score being better, doctor communication was 94.4 before and 94.9 during). CONCLUSIONS: The positive experiences with telehealth, especially tele-video, may be due to patient appreciation of efforts made to maintain access, the focused nature of telehealth visits, and help by staff for navigation technical issues. Lessons learned about delivering responsive telehealth care can be used to ensure high-quality care after the pandemic.

Integrating primary care and public health to enhance response to a pandemic.

Primary health care (PHC) includes both primary care (PC) and essential public health (PH) functions. While much is written about the need to coordinate these two aspects, successful integration remains elusive in many countries. Furthermore, the current global pandemic has highlighted many gaps in a well-integrated PHC approach. Four key actions have been recognized as important for effective integration.A survey of PC stakeholders (clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers) from 111 countries revealed many of the challenges encountered when facing the pandemic without a coordinated effort between PC and PH functions. Participants' responses to open-ended questions underscored how each of the key actions could have been strengthened in their country and are potential factors to why a strong PC system may not have contributed to reduced mortality.By integrating PC and PH greater capacity to respond to emergencies may be possible if the synergies gained by harmonizing the two are realized.

Regional Changes in Patterns of Stroke Presentation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

[Figure: see text].

Key Factors Promoting Rapid Implementation of Virtual Screening Modalities for the COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 (C-19) pandemic required swift response from health care organizations to mitigate spread and impact. A large integrated health network rapidly deployed and operationalized multiple access channels to the community, allowing assessment and triage to occur virtually. These channels were characterized by swift implementation of virtual models, including asynchronous e-visits and video visits for C-19 screening. PURPOSE: (1) Evaluate implementation characteristics of C-19 screening e-visits and video visits. (2) Identify volume of C-19 screening and other care provided via e-visits and video visits. (3) Discuss future implications of expanded virtual access models. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of implementation data for C-19 screening e-visits and video visits, including operational characteristics and visit/screening volumes conducted. RESULTS: Virtual channels were implemented and rapidly expanded during the first week C-19 testing was made available. During the study period, primary care clinicians conducted 10,673 e-visits and 31,226 video visits with 9,126 and 26,009 patients, respectively. Within these 2 virtual modalities, 4,267 C-19 tests were ordered (10% of visits). Four hundred forty-eight clinicians supported 24/7 access to these virtual modalities. DISCUSSION: Given ongoing patient interest and opportunity, virtual health care services will continue to be available for an expanded number of symptoms and diagnoses.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Use and COVID-19 Infection Among 824 650 Patients With Hypertension From a US Integrated Healthcare System.

Background Previous reports suggest that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may upregulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors and increase severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infectivity. We evaluated the association between ACEI or ARB use and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among patients with hypertension. Methods and Results We identified patients with hypertension as of March 1, 2020 (index date) from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients who received ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, thiazide diuretics (TD), or no therapy were identified using outpatient pharmacy data covering the index date. Outcome of interest was a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for COVID-19 between March 1 and May 6, 2020. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were identified within 1 year preindex date. Among 824 650 patients with hypertension, 16 898 (2.0%) were tested for COVID-19. Of those tested, 1794 (10.6%) had a positive result. Overall, exposure to ACEIs or ARBs was not statistically significantly associated with COVID-19 infection after propensity score adjustment (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25) for ACEIs versus calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD; OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31 for ARBs versus calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD). The associations between ACEI use and COVID-19 infection varied in different age groups (P-interaction=0.03). ACEI use was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 among those aged ≥85 years (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.77). Use of no antihypertensive medication was significantly associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection compared with calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56). Conclusions Neither ACEI nor ARB use was associated with increased likelihood of COVID-19 infection. Decreased odds of COVID-19 infection among adults ≥85 years using ACEIs warrants further investigation.

Use Characteristics and Triage Acuity of a Digital Symptom Checker in a Large Integrated Health System: Population-Based Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Pressure on the US health care system has been increasing due to a combination of aging populations, rising health care expenditures, and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to this pressure are hindered in part by reliance on a limited supply of highly trained health care professionals, creating a need for scalable technological solutions. Digital symptom checkers are artificial intelligence-supported software tools that use a conversational "chatbot" format to support rapid diagnosis and consistent triage. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new attention to these tools due to the need to avoid face-to-face contact and preserve urgent care capacity. However, evidence-based deployment of these chatbots requires an understanding of user demographics and associated triage recommendations generated by a large general population. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluate the user demographics and levels of triage acuity provided by a symptom checker chatbot deployed in partnership with a large integrated health system in the United States. METHODS: This population-based descriptive study included all web-based symptom assessments completed on the website and patient portal of the Sutter Health system (24 hospitals in Northern California) from April 24, 2019, to February 1, 2020. User demographics were compared to relevant US Census population data. RESULTS: A total of 26,646 symptom assessments were completed during the study period. Most assessments (17,816/26,646, 66.9%) were completed by female users. The mean user age was 34.3 years (SD 14.4 years), compared to a median age of 37.3 years of the general population. The most common initial symptom was abdominal pain (2060/26,646, 7.7%). A substantial number of assessments (12,357/26,646, 46.4%) were completed outside of typical physician office hours. Most users were advised to seek medical care on the same day (7299/26,646, 27.4%) or within 2-3 days (6301/26,646, 23.6%). Over a quarter of the assessments indicated a high degree of urgency (7723/26,646, 29.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Users of the symptom checker chatbot were broadly representative of our patient population, although they skewed toward younger and female users. The triage recommendations were comparable to those of nurse-staffed telephone triage lines. Although the emergence of COVID-19 has increased the interest in remote medical assessment tools, it is important to take an evidence-based approach to their deployment.

Mobilizing a Whole Community: Policy and Strategy Implications of an Integrated Local System Response to a Global Health Crisis.

The East Toronto Health Partners (ETHP) include more than 50 organizations working collaboratively to create an integrated system of care in the east end of Toronto. This existing partnership proved invaluable as a platform for a rapid, coordinated local response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Months after the first wave of the pandemic began, with the daily numbers of COVID-19 cases finally starting to decline, leaders from ETHP provided preliminary reflections on two critical questions: (1) How were existing integration efforts leveraged to mobilize a response during the COVID-19 crisis? and (2) How can the response to the initial wave of COVID-19 be leveraged to further accelerate integration and better address subsequent waves and system improvements once the pandemic abates?

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers' Risk of Infection and Outcomes in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial. OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N = 72,909) from March 8-June 9, 2020, stratified by HCW and patient-facing status. MAIN MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection. KEY RESULTS: Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than the non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p < 0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p < 0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs. 15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs. 4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20-1.04). Those HCW identified as patient facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2). CONCLUSIONS: In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.