Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Challenges of Caregiving During a Pandemic for Parkinson's Family Care Partners.

Aim: To understand Parkinson's Disease (PD) care partners' a) specific challenges that led to worsening strain and b) their suggestions for supports to help them during the ongoing pandemic. Method: Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews with family care partners (n = 19) were completed. Participants were recruited from 10 sites across the United States that varied in size, demographics of patient population served, and geographic location (urban, suburban, rural). Interviews were audio-recorded, de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and coded in a phased manner. The research team analyzed the data and identified themes. Results: During the pandemic, the already difficult task of caregiving was made worse by having to choose between poor options. Five themes exemplified PD care partner experiences: (1) Managing risks and benefits of medical care in settings outside the home vs meeting these needs at home; (2) Struggling to maintain employment benefits with the costs of care and risks of bringing in outside caregivers; (3) Struggling to balance caregiving and self-care; (4) Struggling to be supportive and taking on new caregiving roles in the face of less support services; and (5) Wanting social connections and feeling pressured to maintain isolation. Care partners wanted timely access to, and guidance from healthcare teams to help them. Conclusions: Care partner burden was worsened by lack of guidance when confronted by choices that could lead to negative outcomes. Movement disorder and palliative care providers may be able to alleviate some care partner burden through building systems for timely access and guidance.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND: Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. RESULTS: Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Primary Care Research Is Hard to Do During COVID-19: Challenges and Solutions.

Conducting research in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic is hard, due to baseline stresses on primary care, which have been compounded by the pandemic. We acknowledge and validate primary care researchers' frustrations. Using our experience on over 15 individual projects during the pandemic we identify 3 key challenges to conducting primary care research: (1) practice delivery trickle-down effects, (2) limited/changing resources and procedures for research, and (3) a generally tense milieu in US society during the pandemic. We present strategies, informed by a set of questions, to help researchers decide how to address these challenges observed during our studies. In order to overcome and grow from these challenging times we encourage normalization and self-compassion, and encourage researchers and funders to embrace pragmatic and adaptive research designs as the circumstances with COVID-19 evolve over time.

Points of Concordance, Points of Discordance: A Qualitative Examination of Telemedicine Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Health systems undertook a rapid transition to increase the use of telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. A continued need for telemedicine services in the coming years is likely. This article examines telemedicine from multiple stakeholders' perspectives considering reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) outcomes. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with primary care practice team members and patients. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes in experiences and perceptions related to telemedicine implementation. The RE-AIM implementation framework was applied to thematic findings to understand influences on implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four practice members and 17 patients across 5 clinics participated. All stakeholder groups reported that technological capabilities influenced patients' access to telemedicine and that certain patients and reasons for visits were not appropriate for telemedicine. All groups felt that telemedicine was a good option for some patients some of the time but not all patients all of the time. DISCUSSION: Telemedicine works well if it is used for the appropriate visits and patient types and with needed technological elements. Older age may limit the feasibility of telehealth for some patients. Added administrative work and associated costs support systematic screening to determine visit appropriateness for telemedicine.

Lessons Learned During COVID-19 That Can Move Telehealth in Primary Care Forward.

INTRODUCTION: Our university hospital-based primary care practices transitioned a budding interest in telehealth to a largely telehealth-based approach in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. INITIAL WORK: Implementation of telehealth began in 2017. Health system barriers, provider and patient reluctance, and inadequate reimbursement prevented widespread adoption at the time. COVID-19 served as the catalyst to accelerate telehealth efforts. IMPLEMENTATION: COVID-19 resulted in the need for patient care with "social distancing." In addition, due to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other insurers began expanded reimbursement for telehealth. More than 2000 providers received virtual health training in less than 2 weeks. In March 2020, we provided 2376 virtual visits, and in April 5293, which was more than 75 times the number provided in February; 73% of all visits in April were virtual (up from 0.5% in October 2019). As COVID-19 cases receded in May, June, and July, patient demand for virtual visits decreased, but 28% of visits in July were still virtual. LESSONS LEARNED: Several key lessons are important for future efforts regarding clinical implementation: (1) prepare for innovation, (2) cultivate an innovation mindset, (3) standardize (but not too much), (4) technological innovation is necessary but not sufficient, and (5) communicate widely and often.