Digitally Disconnected: Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Digital Divide and Potential Solutions.

BACKGROUND: As telemedicine utilization increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, divergent usage patterns for video and audio-only telephone visits emerged. Older, low-income, minority, and non-English speaking Medicaid patients are at highest risk of experiencing technology access and digital literacy barriers. This raises concern for disparities in health care access and widening of the "digital divide," the separation of those with technological access and knowledge and those without. While studies demonstrate correlation between racial and socioeconomic demographics and technological access and ability, individual patients' perspectives of the divide and its impacts remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to interview patients to understand their perspectives on (1) the definition, causes, and impact of the digital divide; (2) whose responsibility it is to address this divide, and (3) potential solutions to mitigate the digital divide. METHODS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted 54 semistructured telephone interviews with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients who had virtual visits (phone, video, or both) between March and September 2020 at the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) primary care clinics. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS: Patients were keenly aware of the digital divide and described impacts beyond health care, including employment, education, community and social contexts, and personal economic stability. Patients described that individuals, government, libraries, schools, health care organizations, and even private businesses all shared the responsibility to address the divide. Proposed solutions to address the divide included conducting community technology needs assessments and improving technology access, literacy training, and resource awareness. Recognizing that some individuals will never cross the divide, patients also emphasized continued support of low-tech communication methods and health care delivery to prevent widening of the digital divide. Furthermore, patients viewed technology access and literacy as drivers of the social determinants of health (SDOH), profoundly influencing how SDOH function to worsen or improve health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives provide valuable insight into the digital divide and can inform solutions to mitigate health and resulting societal inequities. Future work is needed to understand the digital needs of disconnected individuals and communities. As clinical care and delivery continue to integrate telehealth, studies are needed to explore whether having a video or audio-only phone visit results in different patient outcomes and utilization. Advocacy efforts to disseminate public and private resources can also expand device and broadband internet access, improve technology literacy, and increase funding to support both high- and low-tech forms of health care delivery for the disconnected.

Clinician Perspectives on Telemedicine: Observational Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic onset, telemedicine has increased exponentially across numerous outpatient departments and specialties. Qualitative studies examining clinician telemedicine perspectives during the pandemic identified challenges with physical examination, workflow concerns, burnout, and reduced personal connection with patients. However, these studies only included a relatively small number of physicians or were limited to a single specialty, and few assessed perspectives on integrating trainees into workflows, an important area to address to support the clinical learning environment. As telemedicine use continues, it is necessary to understand a range of clinician perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to survey pediatric and adult medicine clinicians at the University of Chicago Medical Center to understand their telemedicine benefits and barriers, workflow impacts, and training and support needs. METHODS: In July 2020, we conducted an observational cross-sectional study of University of Chicago Medical Center faculty and advanced practice providers in the Department of Medicine (DOM) and Department of Pediatrics (DOP). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 39% (200/517; DOM: 135/325, 42%; DOP: 65/192, 34%); most respondents were physicians (DOM: 100/135, 74%; DOP: 51/65, 79%). One-third took longer to prepare for (65/200, 33%) and conduct (62/200, 32%) video visits compared to in-person visits. Male clinicians reported conducting a higher percentage of telemedicine visits by video than their female counterparts (P=.02), with no differences in the number of half-days per week providing direct outpatient care or supervising trainees. Further, clinicians who conducted a higher percentage of their telemedicine by video were less likely to feel overwhelmed (P=.02), with no difference in reported burnout. Female clinicians were "more overwhelmed" with video visits compared to males (41/130, 32% vs 12/64, 19%; P=.05). Clinicians 50 years or older were "less overwhelmed" than those younger than 50 years (30/85, 35% vs 23/113, 20%; P=.02). Those who received more video visit training modalities (eg, a document and webinar on technical issues) were less likely to feel overwhelmed by the conversion to video visits (P=.007) or burnt out (P=.009). In addition, those reporting a higher ability to technically navigate a video visit were also less likely to feel overwhelmed by video visits (P=.02) or burnt out (P=.001). The top telemedicine barriers were patient-related: lack of technology access, lack of skill, and reluctance. Training needs to be focused on integrating learners into workflows. Open-ended responses highlighted a need for increased support staff. Overall, more than half "enjoyed conducting video visits" (119/200, 60%) and wanted to continue using video visits in the future (150/200, 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite positive telemedicine experiences, more support to facilitate video visits for patients and clinicians is needed. Further, clinicians need additional training on trainee education and integration into workflows. Further work is needed to better understand why gender and age differences exist. In conclusion, interventions to address clinician and patient barriers, and enhance clinician training are needed to support telemedicine's durability.

Virtual care: a 'Zoombie' apocalypse?

In the wake of COVID-19, clinicians took to telehealth to continue providing services to their patients, mostly via telephone or videoconferencing technology. Telehealth has many promised and proven benefits including convenience to the patient, potentially less distraction from the electronic health record (EHR), saves in travel time and expenses, and lowering patients' wait time in the clinic. However, there could be some unintended negative consequences including increased clinician burnout due to screen fatigue, potential loss of information due to the limitations of the medium, difficulty discussing sensitive issues and impacts on patient-clinician relationship, empathy, and compassion. In this perspective, we discuss some of the positives and potential negatives of telehealth and highlight some considerations that could guide the choice of media. We submit that for telehealth to become a sustainable solution that is widely applied, it is important to take these issues into consideration in both research and implementation of telehealth solutions.

Integrating Patient-Centered Electronic Health Record Communication Training into Resident Onboarding: Curriculum Development and Post-Implementation Survey Among Housestaff.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) use can enhance or undermine the ability of providers to deliver effective, humanistic patient-centered care. Given patient-centered care has been found to positively impact patient health outcomes, it is critical to provide formal education on patient-centered EHR communication skills. Unfortunately, despite increasing worldwide EHR adoption, few institutions educate trainees on EHR communication best practices. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to develop and deliver mandatory patient-centered EHR training to all incoming housestaff at the University of Chicago. METHODS: We developed a brief patient-centered EHR use curriculum highlighting best practices based on a literature search. Training was embedded into required EHR onboarding for all incoming housestaff (interns, residents, and fellows) at the University of Chicago in 2015 and was delivered by institutional Clinical Applications Trainers. An 11-item posttraining survey consisting of ten 5-point Likert scale questions and 1 open-ended question was administered. Responses at the high end of the scale were grouped to dichotomize data. RESULTS: All 158 of the incoming 2015 postgraduate trainees participated in training and completed surveys (158/158, 100.0%). Just over half (86/158, 54.4%) were interns and the remaining were residents and fellows (72/158, 45.6%). One-fifth of respondents (32/158, 20.2%) were primary care trainees (defined as internal medicine, pediatric, and medicine-pediatric trainees), and the remaining 79.7% (126/158) were surgical or specialty trainees. Self-perceived pre- versus posttraining knowledge of barriers, best practices, and ability to implement patient-centered EHR skills significantly increased (3.1 vs 3.9, P<.001 for all). Most felt training was effective (90.5%), should be required (86.7%), and would change future practice as a result (70.9%). The only significant difference between intern and resident/fellow responses was prior knowledge of patient-centered EHR use barriers; interns endorsed higher prior knowledge than resident peers (3.27 vs 2.94 respectively, P=.03). Response comparison of specialty or surgical trainees (n=126) to primary care trainees (n=32) showed no significant differences in prior knowledge of barriers (3.09 vs 3.22, P=.50), of best practices (3.08 vs 2.94, P=.37), or prior ability to implement best practices (3.11 vs 2.84, P=.15). Primary care trainees had larger increases posttraining than surgical/specialty peers in knowledge of barriers (0.8 vs 0.7, P=.62), best practices (1.1 vs 0.8, P=.08), and ability to implement best practices (1.1 vs 0.7, P=.07), although none reached statistical significance. Primary care trainees also rated training as more effective (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.03) and felt training should be required (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.10) and would change their future practice as a result (4.13 vs 3.73, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Embedding EHR communication skills training into required institutional EHR training is a novel and effective way to teach key EHR skills to trainees. Such training may help ground trainees in best practices and contribute to cultivating an institutional culture of humanistic, patient-centered EHR use.

Electronic-clinical evaluation exercise (e-CEX): A new patient-centered EHR use tool.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic Health Record (EHR) use can enhance or weaken patient-provider communication. Despite EHR adoption, no validated tool exists to assess EHR communication skills. We aimed to develop and validate such a tool. METHODS: Electronic-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (e-CEX) is a 10-item-tool based on systematic literature review and pilot-testing. Second-year (MS2s) students participated in an EHR-use lecture and structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Untrained third-year students (MS3s) participated in the same OSCE. OSCEs were scored with e-CEX compared to a standardized patient (SP) tool. Internal consistency, discriminant validity, and concurrent validity were analyzed. RESULTS: Three investigators used e-CEX to rate 70 videos (20 MS2, 50 MS3). Reliability testing indicated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). MS2s scored significantly higher than untrained MS3s on e-CEX [e-CEX 55(10.7) vs. 44.9 (12.7), P=0.003], providing evidence of discriminant validity. e-CEX and SP score correlation was high (Pearson correlation=0.74, P<0.001), providing concurrent validity evidence. Item reduction suggested a three-item tool had similar explanatory power (R-squared=0.85 vs 0.86). CONCLUSION: e-CEX is a reliable, valid tool to assess medical student patient-centered EHR communication skills. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While validation is needed with other healthcare providers, e-CEX may help improve provider behaviors and enhance patients' overall experience of EHR use in their care.

Impact of Electronic Medical Record Use on the Patient-Doctor Relationship and Communication: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: While Electronic Medical Record (EMR) use has increased dramatically, the EMR's impact on the patient-doctor relationship remains unclear. This systematic literature review sought to understand the impact of EMR use on patient-doctor relationships and communication. METHODS: Parallel searches in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, reference review of prior systematic reviews, meeting abstract reviews, and expert reviews from August 2013 to March 2015 were conducted. Medical Subject Heading terms related to EMR use were combined with keyword terms identifying face-to-face patient-doctor communication. English language observational or interventional studies (1995-2015) were included. Studies examining physician attitudes only were excluded. Structured data extraction compared study population, design, data collection method, and outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 7445 studies reviewed met inclusion criteria. Included studies used behavioral analysis (28) to objectively measure communication behaviors using video or direct observation and pre-post or cross-sectional surveys to examine patient perceptions (25). Objective studies reported EMR communication behaviors that were both potentially negative (i.e., interrupted speech, low rates of screen sharing) and positive (i.e., facilitating questions). Studies examining overall patient perceptions of satisfaction, communication or the patient-doctor relationship (n = 22) reported no change with EMR use (16); a positive impact (5) or showed mixed results (1). Study quality was not assessable. Small sample sizes limited generalizability. Publication bias may limit findings. DISCUSSION: Despite objective evidence that EMR use may negatively impact patient-doctor communication, studies examining patient perceptions found no change in patient satisfaction or patient-doctor communication. Therefore, our findings should encourage providers to adopt the EMR as a communication tool. Future research is needed to better understand how to enhance patient-doctor- EMR communication. This research should correlate observed physician behavior to patient satisfaction, focus on physician communication skills training, and explore inpatient experiences.