Is Telehealth Here To Stay.

The telehealth explosion was facilitated by the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but what happens when the crisis is over? Will there be lasting changes to the practice of medicine and delivery of care, or will providers and patients alike be eager to go back to the "old way" of doing things? Jeremy Gabrysch, MD, a physician and CEO of Remedy, an on-demand urgent care service that delivers doctors right to your front door, discusses what the future of telehealth may hold.

Telehealth: Opportunities to Improve Access, Quality, and Cost in Pediatric Care.

The use of telehealth technology to connect with patients has expanded significantly over the past several years, particularly in response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This technical report describes the present state of telehealth and its current and potential applications. Telehealth has the potential to transform the way care is delivered to pediatric patients, expanding access to pediatric care across geographic distances, leveraging the pediatric workforce for care delivery, and improving disparities in access to care. However, implementation will require significant efforts to address the digital divide to ensure that telehealth does not inadvertently exacerbate inequities in care. The medical home model will continue to evolve to use telehealth to provide high-quality care for children, particularly for children and youth with special health care needs, in accordance with current and evolving quality standards. Research and metric development are critical for the development of evidence-based best practices and policies in these new models of care. Finally, as pediatric care transitions from traditional fee-for-service payment to alternative payment methods, telehealth offers unique opportunities to establish value-based population health models that are financed in a sustainable manner.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis of interviews with cystic fibrosis care team members.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced cystic fibrosis (CF) care programs to rapidly shift from in-person care delivery to telehealth. Our objective was to provide a qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers to: 1) implementing high-quality telehealth and 2) navigating reimbursement for telehealth services. METHODS: We used data from the 2020 State of Care CF Program Survey (n=286 U.S. care programs) administered in August-September to identify two cohorts of programs, with variation in telehealth quality (n=12 programs) and reimbursement (n=8 programs). We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with CF program directors and coordinators in December 2020, approximately 9 months from onset of the pandemic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify facilitators and barriers of implementation, and inductive thematic analysis to identify facilitators and barriers of reimbursement. RESULTS: Factors differentiating programs with greater and lower perceived telehealth quality included telehealth characteristics (perceived advantage over in-person care, cost, platform quality); external influences (needs and resources of those served by the CF program), characteristics of the CF program (compatibility with workflows, relative priority, available resources); characteristics of team members (individual stage of change), and processes for implementation (engaging patients and teams). Reimbursement barriers included documentation to optimize billing; reimbursement of multi-disciplinary team members, remote monitoring, and telephone-only telehealth; and lower volume of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A number of factors are associated with successful implementation and reimbursement of telehealth. Future efforts should provide guidance and incentives that support telehealth delivery and infrastructure, share best practices across CF programs, and remove barriers.

Financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cystic fibrosis care: lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: Chronic care delivery models faced unprecedented financial pressures, with a reduction of in-person visits and adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand the reported financial impact of pandemic-related changes to the cystic fibrosis (CF) care model. METHODS: The U.S. CF Foundation State of Care surveys fielded in Summer 2020 (SoC1) and Spring 2021 (SoC2) included questions for CF programs on the impact of pandemic-related restrictions on overall finances, staffing, licensure, and reimbursement of telehealth services. Descriptive analyses were conducted based on program type. RESULTS: Among the 286 respondents (128 pediatric, 118 adult, 40 affiliate), the majority (62%) reported a detrimental financial impact to their CF care program in SoC1, though fewer (42%) reported detrimental impacts in SoC2. The most common reported impacts in SoC1 were redeployment of clinical staff (68%), furloughs (52%), hiring freezes (51%), decreases in salaries (34%), or layoffs (10%). Reports of lower reimbursement for telehealth increased from 30% to 40% from SoC1 to SoC2. Projecting towards the future, only a minority (17%) of program directors in SoC2 felt that financial support would remain below pre-pandemic levels. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in financial strain on the CF care model, including challenges with reimbursement for telehealth services and reductions in staffing due to institutional changes. Planning for the future of CF care model needs to address these short-term impacts, particularly to ensure a lack of interruption in high-quality multi-disciplinary care.

Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available on the use of telehealth for antenatal care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and implemented a new antenatal care schedule integrating telehealth across all models of pregnancy care. To inform this clinical initiative, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth in antenatal care. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected health data on all women giving birth at Monash Health, a large health service in Victoria (Australia), using an interrupted time-series design. We assessed the impact of telehealth integration into antenatal care from March 23, 2020, across low-risk and high-risk care models. Allowing a 1-month implementation period from March 23, 2020, we compared the first 3 months of telehealth integrated care delivered between April 20 and July 26, 2020, with conventional care delivered between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020. The primary outcomes were detection and outcomes of fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Secondary outcomes were stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks' gestation). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020, 20 031 women gave birth at Monash Health during the conventional care period and 2292 women gave birth during the telehealth integrated care period. Of 20 154 antenatal consultations provided in the integrated care period, 10 731 (53%) were delivered via telehealth. Overall, compared with the conventional care period, no significant differences were identified in the integrated care period with regard to the number of babies with fetal growth restriction (birthweight below the 3rd percentile; 2% in the integrated care period vs 2% in the conventional care period, p=0·72, for low-risk care models; 5% in the integrated care period vs 5% in the conventional care period, p=0·50 for high-risk care models), number of stillbirths (1% vs 1%, p=0·79; 2% vs 2%, p=0·70), or pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia (3% vs 3%, p=0·70; 9% vs 7%, p=0·15), or gestational diabetes (22% vs 22%, p=0·89; 30% vs 26%, p=0·06). Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in preterm birth among women in high-risk models (-0·68% change in incidence per week [95% CI -1·37 to -0·002]; p=0·049), but no significant differences were identified in other outcome measures for low-risk or high-risk care models after telehealth integration compared with conventional care. INTERPRETATION: Telehealth integrated antenatal care enabled the reduction of in-person consultations by 50% without compromising pregnancy outcomes. This care model can help to minimise in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but should also be considered in post-pandemic health-care models. FUNDING: None.

Transitioning Speech-Language Assessment to a Virtual Environment: Lessons Learned From the ELLA Study.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a quick shift to virtual speech-language services; however, only a small percentage of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) had previously engaged in telepractice. The purpose of this clinical tutorial is (a) to describe how the Early Language and Literacy Acquisition in Children with Hearing Loss study, a longitudinal study involving speech-language assessment with children with and without hearing loss, transitioned from in-person to virtual assessment and (b) to provide tips for optimizing virtual assessment procedures. Method We provide an overview of our decision making during the transition to virtual assessment. Additionally, we report on a pilot study that calculated test-retest reliability from in-person to virtual assessment for a subset of our preschool-age participants. Results Our pilot study revealed that most speech-language measures had high or adequate test-retest reliability when administered in a virtual environment. When low reliability occurred, generally the measures were timed. Conclusions Speech-language assessment can be conducted successfully in a virtual environment for preschool children with hearing loss. We provide suggestions for clinicians to consider when preparing for virtual assessment sessions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14787834.

[Telemedicine from experimentation (ETAPES) to COVIDOM a new era ?] / La télémédecine, d'ETAPES à COVIDOM vers une nouvelle ère ?

Telemedicine has been recognized since 2010 as a constitutive element of care, however, it was not until 2016 that the first national experiments were able to be launched with the aim of validating a framework allowing a possible rapid passage in the common right. These experiments, which are due to end in December 2021, have succeeded in involving more than 100,000 patients, mainly suffering from cardiac pathologies. The arrival of COVID-19 has made it possible to measure the usefulness of practices at a distance both from teleconsultation and telemonitoring, with the appearance of organizational and technical innovations that must now be maintained and developed in order to integrate the telemedicine of tomorrow into our actual medicine.

Acceleration of mobile health for monitoring post-transplant in the COVID-19 era: Applications for pediatric settings.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns, the use of telehealth interventions has rapidly increased both in the general population and among transplant recipients. Among pediatric transplant recipients, this most frequently takes the form of interventions on mobile devices, or mHealth, such as remote visits via video chat or phone, phone-based monitoring, and mobile apps. Telehealth interventions may offer the opportunity to provide care that minimizes many of the barriers of in-person care. METHODS: The present review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Sources up until October 2020 were initially identified through searches of PsycInfo® and PubMed® . RESULTS: We identified ten papers that reported findings from adult interventions and five studies based in pediatrics. Eight of the adult publications stemmed from the same two trials; within the pediatric subset, this was the case for two papers. Studies that have looked at mHealth interventions have found high acceptability rates over the short run, but there is a general lack of data on long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: The literature surrounding pediatric trials specifically is sparse with all findings referencing interventions that are in early stages of development, ranging from field tests to small feasibility trials. The lack of research highlights the need for a multi-center RCT that utilizes robust measures of medication adherence and other outcome variables, with longer-term follow-up before telehealth interventions should be fully embraced.

Feasibility, Outcomes, and Safety of Telehepatology Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has hampered health care delivery globally. We evaluated the feasibility, outcomes, and safety of telehepatology in delivering quality care amid the pandemic. A telemedicine setup using smartphones by hepatologists was organized at our tertiary-care center after pilot testing. Consecutive patients availing telehepatology services were recruited between March and July 2020. An adapted model for assessment of telemedicine was used after validity and reliability testing, to evaluate services 7-21 days after index teleconsultation. Of the 1,419 registrations, 1,281 (90.3%) consultations were completed. From 245 randomly surveyed patients, 210 (85.7%) responded (age [years, interquartile range]: 46 [35-56]; 32.3% females). Seventy percent of patients belonged to the middle or lower socio-economic class, whereas 61% were from rural areas. Modes of teleconsultation were audio (54.3%) or hybrid video call (45.7%). Teleconsultation alone was deemed suitable in 88.6% of patients. Diagnosis and compliance rates were 94% and 82.4%, respectively. Patients' convenience rate, satisfaction rate, improvement rate, success rate, and net promoter scores were 99.0%, 85.2%, 49.5%, 46.2% and 70, respectively. Physical and mental quality of life improved in 67.1% and 82.8% of patients, respectively, following index teleconsultation. Person-hours and money spent by patients were significantly lower with teleconsultation (P < 0.001); however, person-hours spent by hospital per teleconsultation were higher than in physical outpatient services (P < 0.001). Dissatisfied patients were more likely to have lower diagnosis rate, unsuitability for teleconsultation, noncompliance, poorer understanding, and uncomfortable conversation during teleconsultation. Connectivity issues (22.9%) were the most common barrier. Three patients, all of whom were advised emergency care during teleconsultation, succumbed to their illness. Conclusion: Telehepatology is a feasible and reasonably effective tool for rendering health care services using smartphones during the COVID-19 pandemic. Systematic implementation, possible integration into routine health care delivery, and formal cost-effectiveness of telehepatology services need further exploration.

Anaphylaxis and digital medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Digital medicine (mHealth) aims to help patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) improve and facilitate the provision of patient care. It encompasses equipment/connected medical devices, mHealth services and mHealth apps (apps). An updated review on digital health in anaphylaxis is proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: In anaphylaxis, mHealth is used in electronic health records and registries.It will greatly benefit from the new International Classification of Diseases-11 rules and artificial intelligence. Telehealth has been revolutionised by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and lessons learnt should be extended to shared decision making in anaphylaxis. Very few nonvalidated apps exist and there is an urgent need to develop and validate such tools. SUMMARY: Although digital health appears to be of great importance in anaphylaxis, it is still insufficiently used.

Virtual epilepsy clinics - A Canadian Comprehensive Epilepsy Center experience pre-COVID and during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the role of prior experience with virtual care (through e-visits) in maintaining continuity in ambulatory epilepsy care during an unprecedented pandemic situation, comparing in person versus e-visit clinic uptake. METHODS: This is an observational study on virtual epilepsy care (through e-visits) over two years, during a pre-COVID period (14 months) continuing into the COVID-19 pandemic period (10 months). For a small initial section of patients seen during the study period a physician survey and a patient satisfaction survey were completed (n = 53). Outcomes of eVisits were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Median numbers of epilepsy clinic visits conducted during the COVID-19 period (27.5 new and 113 follow up) remained similar to the median uptake during the pre-COVID period (28 new and 116 follow up). Prior experience with e-visits for epilepsy yielded smooth transition into the pandemic period, with several other advantages. The majority of eVisits were successful despite technical difficulties and major components of history and management were still easily implemented. Results from patient surveys supported that a significant amount of time and money were saved, which was in keeping with our health-economic analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study is one of the first few reports of fully integrated virtual care in a comprehensive epilepsy clinic starting much before start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of our study support the feasibility of using virtual care to deliver specialized outpatient care in a comprehensive epilepsy center.

Pediatric Telehealth in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era and Beyond.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to an unprecedented demand for health care at a distance, and telehealth (the delivery of patient care using telecommunications technology) became more widespread. Since our 2018 state-of-the-art review assessing the pediatric telehealth landscape, there have been many changes in technology, policy, payment, and physician and patient acceptance of this care model. Clinical best practices in telehealth, on the other hand, have remained unchanged during this time, with the primary difference being the need to implement them at scale.Because of the pandemic, underlying health system weaknesses that have previously challenged telehealth adoption (including inequitable access to care, unsustainable costs in a fee-for-service system, and a lack of quality metrics for novel care delivery modalities) were simultaneously exacerbated. Higher volume use has provided a new appreciation of how patients from underrepresented backgrounds can benefit from or be disadvantaged by the shift toward virtual care. Moving forward, it will be critical to assess which COVID-19 telehealth changes should remain in place or be developed further to ensure children have equitable access to high-quality care.With this review, we aim to (1) depict today's pediatric telehealth practice in an era of digital disruption; (2) describe the people, training, processes, and tools needed for its successful implementation and sustainability; (3) examine health equity implications; and (4) critically review current telehealth policy as well as future policy needs. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is continuing to develop policy, specific practice tips, training modules, checklists, and other detailed resources, which will be available later in 2021.