Clinician and Health Care Leaders' Experiences with-and Perceptions of-COVID-19 Documentation Reduction Policies and Practices.

BACKGROUND: Substantial strategies to reduce clinical documentation were implemented by health care systems throughout the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at national and local levels. This natural experiment provides an opportunity to study the impact of documentation reduction strategies on documentation burden among clinicians and other health professionals in the United States. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' and other health care leaders' experiences with and perceptions of COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies and identify which implemented strategies should be prioritized and remain permanent post-pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of clinicians and health care leaders to understand COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies implemented during the pandemic using snowball sampling through professional networks, listservs, and social media. We developed and validated a 19-item survey leveraging existing post-COVID-19 policy and practice recommendations proposed by Sinsky and Linzer. Participants rated reduction strategies for impact on documentation burden on a scale of 0 to 100. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 351 surveys initiated, 193 (55%) were complete. Most participants were informaticians and/or clinicians and worked for a health system or in academia. A majority experienced telehealth expansion (81.9%) during the pandemic, which participants also rated as highly impactful (60.1-61.5) and preferred that it remain (90.5%). Implemented at lower proportions, documenting only pertinent positives to reduce note bloat (66.1 ± 28.3), changing compliance rules and performance metrics to eliminate those without evidence of net benefit (65.7 ± 26.3), and electronic health record (EHR) optimization sprints (64.3 ± 26.9) received the highest impact scores compared with other strategies presented; support for these strategies widely ranged (49.7-63.7%). CONCLUSION: The results of this survey suggest there are many perceived sources of and solutions for documentation burden. Within strategies, we found considerable support for telehealth, documenting pertinent positives, and changing compliance rules. We also found substantial variation in the experience of documentation burden among participants.

Patient Perceptions of Receiving COVID-19 Test Results via an Online Patient Portal: An Open Results Survey.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, attention has been focused on "open notes" and "open results" since the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology implemented the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule on information blocking. Open notes is an established best practice, but open results remains controversial, especially for diseases associated with stigma, morbidity, and mortality. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with all three of these effects and represents an ideal disease for the study of open results for sensitive test results. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates patient perspectives related to receiving COVID-19 test results via an online patient portal prior to discussion with a clinician. METHODS: We surveyed adults who underwent COVID-19 testing between March 1, 2020 and October 21, 2020 who agreed to be directly contacted about COVID-19-related research about their perspectives on receiving test results via a patient portal. We evaluated user roles (i.e., patient vs. care partner), demographic information, ease of use, impact of immediate release, notification of results, impact of viewing results on health management, and importance of sharing results with others. RESULTS: Users were mostly patients themselves. Users found the portal easy to use but expressed mixed preferences about the means of notification of result availability (e.g., email, text, or phone call). Users found immediate access to results useful for managing their health, employment, and family/childcare. Many users shared their results and encouraged others to get tested. Our cohort consisted mostly of non-Hispanic white, highly educated, English-speaking patients. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients found open results useful for COVID-19 testing and few expressed increased worries from receiving their results via the patient portal. The demographics of our cohort highlight the need for further research in patient portal equity in the age of open results.

Extracting Medical Information from Paper COVID-19 Assessment Forms.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the validity of optical mark recognition, a novel user interface, and crowdsourced data validation to rapidly digitize and extract data from paper COVID-19 assessment forms at a large medical center. METHODS: An optical mark recognition/optical character recognition (OMR/OCR) system was developed to identify fields that were selected on 2,814 paper assessment forms, each with 141 fields which were used to assess potential COVID-19 infections. A novel user interface (UI) displayed mirrored forms showing the scanned assessment forms with OMR results superimposed on the left and an editable web form on the right to improve ease of data validation. Crowdsourced participants validated the results of the OMR system. Overall error rate and time taken to validate were calculated. A subset of forms was validated by multiple participants to calculate agreement between participants. RESULTS: The OMR/OCR tools correctly extracted data from scanned forms fields with an average accuracy of 70% and median accuracy of 78% when the OMR/OCR results were compared with the results from crowd validation. Scanned forms were crowd-validated at a mean rate of 157 seconds per document and a volume of approximately 108 documents per day. A randomly selected subset of documents was reviewed by multiple participants, producing an interobserver agreement of 97% for documents when narrative-text fields were included and 98% when only Boolean and multiple-choice fields were considered. CONCLUSION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be challenging for health care workers wearing personal protective equipment to interact with electronic health records. The combination of OMR/OCR technology, a novel UI, and crowdsourcing data-validation processes allowed for the efficient extraction of a large volume of paper medical documents produced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid development of telehealth capabilities within pediatric patient portal infrastructure for COVID-19 care: barriers, solutions, results.

The COVID-19 national emergency has led to surging care demand and the need for unprecedented telehealth expansion. Rapid telehealth expansion can be especially complex for pediatric patients. From the experience of a large academic medical center, this report describes a pathway for efficiently increasing capacity of remote pediatric enrollment for telehealth while fulfilling privacy, security, and convenience concerns. The design and implementation of the process took 2 days. Five process requirements were identified: efficient enrollment, remote ability to establish parentage, minimal additional work for application processing, compliance with guidelines for adolescent autonomy, and compliance with institutional privacy and security policies. Weekly enrollment subsequently increased 10-fold for children (age 0-12 years) and 1.2-fold for adolescents (age 13-17 years). Weekly telehealth visits increased 200-fold for children and 90-fold for adolescents. The obstacles and solutions presented in this report can provide guidance to health systems for similar challenges during the COVID-19 response and future disasters.

Tracking the Volume of Neurosurgical Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we quantified the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the volume of adult and pediatric neurosurgical procedures, inpatient consultations, and clinic visits at an academic medical center. METHODS: Neurosurgical procedures, inpatient consultations, and outpatient appointments at Vanderbilt University Medical Center were identified from March 23, 2020 through May 8, 2020 (during COVID-19) and March 25, 2019 through May 10, 2019 (before COVID-19). The neurosurgical volume was compared between the 2 periods. RESULTS: A 40% reduction in weekly procedural volume was demonstrated during COVID-19 (median before, 75; interquartile range [IQR], 72-80; median during, 45; IQR, 43-47; P < 0.001). A 42% reduction occurred in weekly adult procedures (median before, 62; IQR, 54-70; median during, 36; IQR, 34-39; P < 0.001), and a 31% reduction occurred in weekly pediatric procedures (median before, 13; IQR, 12-14; median during, 9; IQR, 8-10; P = 0.004). Among adult procedures, the most significant decreases were seen for spine (P < 0.001) and endovascular (P < 0.001) procedures and cranioplasty (P < 0.001). A significant change was not found in the adult open vascular (P = 0.291), functional (P = 0.263), cranial tumor (P = 0.143), or hydrocephalus (P = 0.173) procedural volume. Weekly inpatient consultations to neurosurgery decreased by 24% (median before, 99; IQR, 94-114; median during, 75; IQR, 68-84; P = 0.008) for adults. Weekly in-person adult and pediatric outpatient clinic visits witnessed a 91% decrease (median before, 329; IQR, 326-374; median during, 29; IQR, 26-39; P < 0.001). In contrast, weekly telehealth encounters increased from a median of 0 (IQR, 0-0) before to a median of 151 (IQR, 126-156) during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions occurred in neurosurgical operations, clinic visits, and inpatient consultations during COVID-19. Telehealth was increasingly used for assessments. The long-term effects of the reduced neurosurgical volume and increased telehealth usage on patient outcomes should be explored.

Electronic personal protective equipment: A strategy to protect emergency department providers in the age of COVID-19.

Emergent policy changes related to telemedicine and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have created opportunities for technology-based clinical evaluation, which serves to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE) and protect emergency providers. We define electronic PPE as an approach using telemedicine tools to perform electronic medical screening exams while satisfying the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. We discuss the safety, legal, and technical factors necessary for implementing such a pathway. This approach has the potential to conserve PPE and protect providers while maintaining safe standards for medical screening exams in the emergency department for low-risk patients in whom COVID-19 is suspected.