Implementation Science Perspectives on Implementing Telemedicine Interventions for Hypertension or Diabetes Management: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and diabetes are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Telemedicine is an accessible and cost-effective means of supporting hypertension and diabetes management, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technological solutions for care. However, to date, no review has examined the contextual factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension or diabetes worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We adopted a comprehensive implementation research perspective to synthesize the barriers to and facilitators of implementing telemedicine interventions for the management of hypertension, diabetes, or both. METHODS: We performed a scoping review involving searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies published in English from 2017 to 2022 describing barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes management. The coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Of the 17,687 records identified, 35 (0.2%) studies were included in our scoping review. We found that facilitators of and barriers to implementation were dispersed across the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Barriers related to cost, patient needs and resources (eg, lack of consideration of language needs, culture, and rural residency), and personal attributes of patients (eg, demographics and priorities) were the most common. Facilitators related to the design and packaging of the intervention (eg, user-friendliness), patient needs and resources (eg, personalized information that leveraged existing strengths), implementation climate (eg, intervention embedded into existing infrastructure), knowledge of and beliefs about the intervention (eg, convenience of telemedicine), and other personal attributes (eg, technical literacy) were the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the successful implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes requires comprehensive efforts at the planning, execution, engagement, and reflection and evaluation stages of intervention implementation to address challenges at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and environmental levels.

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.

Assessing a New Prescreening Score for the Simplified Evaluation of the Clinical Quality and Relevance of eHealth Apps: Instrument Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, more than 250 eHealth solutions were added to app stores each day, or 90,000 in the year; however, the vast majority of these solutions have not undergone clinical validation, their quality is unknown, and the user does not know if they are effective and safe. We sought to develop a simple prescreening scoring method that would assess the quality and clinical relevance of each app. We designed this tool with 3 health care stakeholder groups in mind: eHealth solution designers seeking to evaluate a potential competitor or their own tool, investors considering a fundraising candidate, and a hospital clinician or IT department wishing to evaluate a current or potential eHealth solution. OBJECTIVE: We built and tested a novel prescreening scoring tool (the Medical Digital Solution scoring tool). The tool, which consists of 26 questions that enable the quick assessment and comparison of the clinical relevance and quality of eHealth apps, was tested on 68 eHealth solutions. METHODS: The Medical Digital Solution scoring tool is based on the 2021 evaluation criteria of the French National Health Authority, the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, and other provided scores. We built the scoring tool with patient association and eHealth experts and submitted it to eHealth app creators, who evaluated their apps via the web-based form in January 2022. After completing the evaluation criteria, their apps obtained an overall score and 4 categories of subscores. These criteria evaluated the type of solution and domain, the solution's targeted population size, the level of clinical assessment, and information about the provider. RESULTS: In total, 68 eHealth solutions were evaluated with the scoring tool. Oncology apps (22%, 20/90) and general health solutions (23%, 21/90) were the most represented. Of the 68 apps, 32 (47%) were involved in remote monitoring by health professionals. Regarding clinical outcomes, 5% (9/169) of the apps assessed overall survival. Randomized studies had been conducted for 21% (23/110) of the apps to assess their benefit. Of the 68 providers, 38 (56%) declared the objective of obtaining reimbursement, and 7 (18%) out of the 38 solutions seeking reimbursement were assessed as having a high probability of reimbursement. The median global score was 11.2 (range 4.7-17.4) out of 20 and the distribution of the scores followed a normal distribution pattern (Shapiro-Wilk test: P=.33). CONCLUSIONS: This multidomain prescreening scoring tool is simple, fast, and can be deployed on a large scale to initiate an assessment of the clinical relevance and quality of a clinical eHealth app. This simple tool can help a decision-maker determine which aspects of the app require further analysis and improvement.

Assessing Telemedicine Efficiency in Follow-up Care With Video Consultations for Patients in Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery in Germany: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine can help mitigate important health care challenges, such as demographic changes and the current COVID-19 pandemic, in high-income countries such as Germany. It gives physicians and patients the opportunity to interact via video consultations, regardless of their location, thus offering cost and time savings for both sides. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether telemedicine can be implemented efficiently in the follow-up care for patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery, with respect to patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, and quality of care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in a German university hospital and enrolled 60 patients with different knee and shoulder conditions. For follow-up appointments, patients received either an in-person consultation in the clinic (control group) or a video consultation with their physician (telemedicine group). Patients' and physicians' subsequent evaluations of these follow-up appointments were collected and assessed using separate questionnaires. RESULTS: On the basis of data from 52 consultations after 8 withdrawals, it was found that patients were slightly more satisfied with video consultations (mean 1.58, SD 0.643) than with in-clinic consultations (mean 1.64, SD 0.569), although the difference was not statistically significant (P=.69). After excluding video consultations marred by technical problems, no significant difference was found in physician satisfaction between the groups (mean 1.47, SD 0.516 vs mean 1.32, SD 0.557; P=.31). Further analysis indicated that telemedicine can be applied to broader groups of patients and that patients who have prior experience with telemedicine are more willing to use telemedicine for follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine can be an alternative and efficient form of follow-up care for patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery in Germany, and it has no significant disadvantages compared with in-person consultations in the clinic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023445; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023445.

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation. METHODS: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence-based guidance on how to achieve this. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Services and Challenges at a Native American Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Center during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, challenges arose for a Native American residential substance use disorder treatment program in California (e.g., insufficient housing for quarantining, inadequate telehealth bandwidth, food shortages, client skepticism regarding safety needs). These challenges were addressed, culturally appropriate services continued, no clients tested positive for COVID-19, and unexpected benefits arose.

Scaling virtual health at the epicentre of coronavirus disease 2019: A case study from NYU Langone Health.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the drive of health-care delivery towards virtual-care platforms. While the potential of virtual care is significant, there are challenges to the implementation and scalability of virtual care as a platform, and health-care organisations are at risk of building and deploying non-strategic, costly or unsustainable virtual-health systems. In this article, we share the NYU Langone Health enterprise approach to building and scaling an integrated virtual-health platform prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and offer lessons learned and recommendations for health systems that need to undertake or are currently undertaking the transition to virtual-care delivery.

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.

Successfully Implementing Digital Health to Ensure Future Global Health Security During Pandemics: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: COVID-19 has highlighted widespread chronic underinvestment in digital health that hampered public health responses to the pandemic. Recognizing this, the Riyadh Declaration on Digital Health, formulated by an international interdisciplinary team of medical, academic, and industry experts at the Riyadh Global Digital Health Summit in August 2020, provided a set of digital health recommendations for the global health community to address the challenges of current and future pandemics. However, guidance is needed on how to implement these recommendations in practice. Objective: To develop guidance for stakeholders on how best to deploy digital health and data and support public health in an integrated manner to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics. Evidence Review: Themes were determined by first reviewing the literature and Riyadh Global Digital Health Summit conference proceedings, with experts independently contributing ideas. Then, 2 rounds of review were conducted until all experts agreed on the themes and main issues arising using a nominal group technique to reach consensus. Prioritization was based on how useful the consensus recommendation might be to a policy maker. Findings: A diverse stakeholder group of 13 leaders in the fields of public health, digital health, and health care were engaged to reach a consensus on how to implement digital health recommendations to address the challenges of current and future pandemics. Participants reached a consensus on high-priority issues identified within 5 themes: team, transparency and trust, technology, techquity (the strategic development and deployment of technology in health care and health to achieve health equity), and transformation. Each theme contains concrete points of consensus to guide the local, national, and international adoption of digital health to address challenges of current and future pandemics. Conclusions and Relevance: The consensus points described for these themes provide a roadmap for the implementation of digital health policy by all stakeholders, including governments. Implementation of these recommendations could have a significant impact by reducing fatalities and uniting countries on current and future battles against pandemics.

Tele-neuro-oncology: Current Practices and Future Directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe the current state of telemedicine within neuro-oncology. This article will address the development of tele-neuro-oncology over time with a focus on current use and applications of telemedicine within the field. Current modalities and practical considerations for tele-neuro-oncology visits and opportunities for growth will be highlighted. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of telemedicine has expanded significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly within neuro-oncology. The use of telemedicine is widely accepted by neuro-oncologic patients and providers and continues to expand in utilization and scope. The use of tele-neuro-oncology is expected to develop further with opportunities for multidisciplinary and integrated care, clinical trials, research, and education. Telemedicine provides a unique, patient-centered approach to neuro-oncologic care. Telehealth will remain a valuable tool, and its use and role are expected to expand within neuro-oncology.

APLAR recommendations on the practice of telemedicine in rheumatology.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid and widespread adoption of telemedicine in rheumatology care. The Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) working group was tasked with developing evidence-based recommendations for rheumatology practice to guide maintenance of the highest possible standards of clinical care and to enable broad patient reach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of English-language articles related to telehealth in rheumatology was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Web Of Science and Scopus. The strength of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach as well as the Oxford Levels of Evidence. The recommendations were developed using a modified Delphi technique to establish consensus. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 13 recommendations were developed based on identified literature and consensus agreement. The overarching principles address telemedicine frameworks, decision-making, and modality. Recommendations 1-4 address patient suitability, triage, and when telemedicine should be offered to patients. Recommendations 5-10 cover the procedure, including the means, data safety, fail-safe mechanisms, and treat-to-target approach. Recommendations 11-13 focus on training and education related to telerheumatology. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the approach and use of telemedicine in rheumatology care to guide highest possible standards of clinical care and to enable equitable patient reach. However, since evidence in telemedicine care in rheumatology is limited and emerging, most recommendations will need further consideration when more data are available.

Design and methods for understanding the state of cystic fibrosis care amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Novel therapies have dramatically changed cystic fibrosis (CF) and innovative care delivery systems are needed to meet future patient needs. Telehealth has been shown to be an efficient and desirable form of care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid shift to telehealth, and this presented a unique opportunity to study facilitators, barriers, and satisfaction with this mode of care delivery. We aim to report survey methods, demographics and telehealth use among CF care programs, patients, and families during the pandemic. METHODS: CF programs completed two surveys between July 29 and September 18, 2020, and between April 19 and May 19, 2021. Patients and families completed a similar survey between August 31 and October 30, 2020. The surveys addressed topics assessing the pandemic's financial impact, telehealth modes and experiences, licensure and reimbursement issues, health screening, and remote monitoring. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and were compared to the CF Foundation Patient Registry. RESULTS: Most programs (278 at timepoint one and 274 at timepoint two) provided telehealth during the pandemic. The percent of visits containing either telephone or video components changed from 45% to 25% over the time periods. Additionally, 424 patients and families from various ages and backgrounds responded to the survey and 81% reported having a telehealth visit. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic accelerated telehealth adoption and these datasets are a valuable source for exploring telehealth barriers and facilitators, the quality-of-care experience, financial and workforce implications, the impact on underrepresented populations, and implications for coverage and reimbursement.

Evaluating barriers to and promoters of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic at U.S. cystic fibrosis programs.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) care programs in the United States rapidly adopted telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding factors that promote or impede telehealth will inform planning for future telehealth-enabled care models. METHODS: Adult, pediatric, and affiliate CF care programs in the United States (n = 287) were surveyed twice eight months apart in 2020-2021 about telehealth use. Programs were asked to describe barriers to and promoters of telehealth. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of programs provided telehealth services. In the first CF Care Program State of Care Survey (SoC1), programs estimated that 57% of patients exclusively received in-person care, 36% of patients received telehealth by phone/computer with video, and 8% of patients received telephone-only care. In the second CF Care Program State of Care Survey (SoC2), programs estimated that 80% of visits were in-person and 15% were via audio and video telehealth. Pediatric programs (21%) were less likely than adult (37%) or affiliate (41%) programs to recommend telehealth (p = 0.007). All programs ranked lack of internet access as the highest barrier to patient engagement with telehealth. Promoters of telehealth were increased accessibility and avoidance of infection transmission. Top ranked changes to improve telehealth were expanded provision of remote monitoring devices and technology access. Similar proportions of program types anticipated institutional telehealth expansion. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CF programs in the United States identified factors to improve future care delivery via telehealth. Targeting specific barriers and promoters will improve the use and quality of telehealth throughout the care center network.

Remote monitoring in telehealth care delivery across the U.S. cystic fibrosis care network.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) programs and people with CF (PwCF) employed various monitoring methods for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper characterizes experiences with remote monitoring across the U.S. CF community. METHODS: The CF Foundation (CFF) sponsored distribution of home spirometers (April 2020 to May 2021), surveys to PwCF and CF programs (July to September 2020), and a second program survey (April to May 2021). We used mixed methods to explore access, use, and perspectives regarding the use of remote monitoring in future care. RESULTS: By October 2020, 13,345 spirometers had been distributed, and 19,271 spirometers by May 2021. Programs (n=286) estimated proportions of PwCF with home devices increased over seven months: spirometers (30% to 70%), scales (50% to 70%), oximeters (5% to 10%) with higher estimates in adult programs for spirometers and oximeters. PwCF (n=378) had access to scales (89%), followed by oximeters (48%) and spirometers (47%), often using scales and oximeters weekly, and spirometers monthly. Over both surveys, some programs had no method to collect respiratory specimens for cultures associated with telehealth visits (47%, n=132; 41%, n=118). Most programs (81%) had a process for phlebotomy associated with a telehealth visit, primarily through off-site labs. Both PwCF and programs felt future care should advance remote monitoring and recommended improvements for access, training, and data collection systems. CONCLUSIONS: PwCF and programs experienced unprecedented access to remote monitoring and raised its importance for future care. Improvements to current systems may leverage these shared experiences to augment future care models.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: How our response is shaping the future of cystic fibrosis care.

The findings of this body of work are presented in the eight articles included in this supplement. The impact and perspectives of adult and pediatric care teams and patient/families are covered with special attention to mental health care, the financial and personnel impacts within care programs, the experiences of vulnerable and underrepresented patient populations, and implementation of remoting monitoring. Commentaries from colleagues provide a broader perspective, offering reflections on the findings and their implications regarding the future CF care model.

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.