Hospital Readmission Rates for Patients Receiving In-Person vs. Telemedicine Discharge Follow-Up Care.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned readmissions can be avoided by standardizing and improving the coordination of care after discharge. Telemedicine has been increasingly utilized; however, the quality of this care has not been well studied. Standardized measures can provide an objective comparison of care quality. The purpose of our study was to compare quality performance transitions of care management in the office vs telemedicine. METHODS: The Epic SlicerDicer tool was used to compare the percentage of encounters that were completed via telemedicine (video visits); or via in-person for comparison, Chi-squared tests were used. RESULTS: A total of 13,891 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study time frame. There were 12,846 patients in the office and 1,048 in the telemedicine cohort. The office readmission rate was 11.9% with 1,533 patients out of 12,846 compared with telemedicine with the rate of readmission at 12.1% with 126 patients out of 1,045 patients. The P-value for the Chi-squared test between the prepandemic and study time frame was 0.15 and 0.95, respectively. Demographic comparability was seen. DISCUSSION: Our study found a comparable readmission rate between patients seen via in-office and telemedicine for Transitions of Care Management (TCM) encounters. The findings of this study support the growing body of evidence that telemedicine augments quality performance while reducing cost and improving access without negatively impacting HEDIS performance in health care systems. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine poses little threat of negatively impacting HEDIS performance and might be as effective as posthospitalization traditional office care transitions of care management.

Technology in Medicine: Optimizing Electronic Health Records.

Electronic health record (EHR) systems have transformed the medical industry. Despite their known benefits, their implementation has resulted in new digital administrative tasks and responsibilities for physicians. This increase in administrative burden has been shown to contribute to physician burnout. Most sources of EHR-related burnout can be categorized into three groups: poor usability, excessive time spent in the EHR, and inefficient workflows. Evidence-based interventions for EHR-related burnout focus on training and education, which improve efficiency in EHR use and may reduce burnout. Optimization of the EHR interface, including personalization and use of targeted workflows, can help address physician frustrations and improve productivity. In the United States, the federal government regulates EHR system development and sets usability requirements. These requirements are critical because visualization and operational design of the user interface have been shown to directly affect patient care and safety. Negative effects of EHR implementation generally are related to increased administrative burden. Positive effects include greater clinician productivity and administrative cost savings. EHR adoption has consistently been associated with positive financial and clinical outcomes. Federal laws continue to be implemented to improve EHR usability, interoperability, and standards for data access and security.

Technology in Medicine: Improving Clinical Documentation.

The association between electronic health record (EHR) documentation and physician burnout is well-known. A combination of insufficient time to complete tasks, clinical documentation burden, and electronic inbox overload comprises the definition of documentation-related burnout. Burnout mitigation strategies related to clinical documentation include use of targeted EHR training for documentation, use of medical scribes, and institutional documentation redesign. Mitigation strategies related to electronic inbox overload include assigning designated administrative time for inbox management, tailoring of message content to decrease length, and a team-based approach to clinical workflows. Best practices for improving the efficiency of clinical documentation in the EHR include use of automation tools (eg, macros, templates), physician note optimization, and use of team-based documentation. Clinical documentation aids such as medical scribes, speech recognition software, and artificial intelligence (AI)-based software are popular and often considered a necessary resource in health care. For most practices, decisions regarding which aid to use will likely be determined by cost. Speech recognition software is the lowest cost option. AI-based software and medical scribes are more costly.

Technology in Medicine: Telemedicine.

Telemedicine is defined as the provision of clinical services via telephone or video and is a type of telehealth. Telehealth is defined as the use of electronic information and telecommunications technologies for the delivery of health care, health education, and health information. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine availability and use of telehealth care significantly increased. The integral role of telemedicine during this time prompted the unprecedented integration of telehealth as a quasi-standard of care. Recent studies have shown telemedicine can achieve comparable or superior quality performance compared with in-office visits for a range of clinical areas in large primary care populations. Implementation of telemedicine at the practice level depends on use of strong clinical workflows across the medical team. Effective telemedicine visits rely on adaptation to a digital environment and patient cooperation for virtual physical examinations. There are subtle differences in coding for billing telemedicine visits (mainly for audio-only visits), and many add-on codes for preventive care are eligible for telehealth. Concerns exist about the ethical implications of virtual care, especially regarding privacy and access. The future success of telehealth will depend on a balance of patient autonomy and health outcomes in the context of health equity.

Technology in Medicine: Remote Patient Monitoring.

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) provides real-time clinical patient data to the medical team. The foundational element of RPM is communication, including data processing and integration in the electronic health record and communication of data between patients and clinicians. Patient portals are integral to this communication and their use can result in improved health outcomes and patient safety. Patient portals promote engagement of patients in their care, increase access to the medical team, and integrate RPM system data. RPM systems can monitor a spectrum of parameters related to chronic conditions, from vital signs (eg, heart and respiration rates, blood pressure, blood oxygen and glucose levels) to advanced cardiovascular measures. Some RPM systems are capable of automated monitoring. Health care insurance coverage of RPM systems varies widely, which has health equity implications, particularly for high-risk patients with endocrine and cardiovascular conditions. Additional challenges to widespread adoption of RPM include its contribution to administrative burden for physicians, patient data privacy issues, and variable effectiveness of RPM systems in the management of different chronic conditions.

Recommendation for Long-term Management of Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Military Populations, Veterans, and Dependents: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: In addition to the higher burden of mental health disease in the military, there is a compounding antecedent association between behavioral health comorbidities and the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in this population. Despite the low prevalence of new-onset ADHD in adults globally, the rate of stimulant (i.e., amphetamines) prescription is increasing. Stimulants can exacerbate mental health disease (often masquerading as ADHD symptomatology), precluding optimal treatment of the underlying etiology and imposing unnecessary dangerous side effects. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of stimulants for managing adult ADHD. METHODS: A nine-member multidisciplinary team reviewed a PubMed search with the terms "adult," "ADHD," and "stimulant." Targeted PubMed and Google Scholar searches for "adult ADHD" paired with Food and Drug Administration -approved ADHD medications and Google Scholar literature using forward and reverse snowballing methods were performed for high-quality studies focusing on long-term treatment in ADHD. An evidence table and clinical algorithm were developed from the review. RESULTS: Of the 1,039 results, 50 articles were fully reviewed, consisting of 21 descriptive and experimental studies, 18 observational, and 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Illustrative cases within the structured discussion of the results highlighted ADHD and psychiatric comorbidities, risks, harms, and benefits of stimulant use, medication mechanisms of action, and limitations of the current evidence. DISCUSSION: The dearth of high-quality studies on long-term ADHD management in adults fails to establish a causal relationship between stimulant use and physiological harm. Despite mixed evidence supporting the benefit of stimulants, there is clear evidence regarding the risk of harm. The serious risks of stimulants include arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, sudden death, psychosis, and worsening of behavioral health disease. Additionally, there is a possible long-term risk of harm due to chronic sympathetic load (i.e., cardiovascular system remodeling). Stimulants pose a greater risk for addiction and abuse compared to other evidence-based nonstimulant medications that have similar effectiveness. Both stimulants and nonstimulants might promote favorable neuroanatomical changes for long-term improvement of ADHD symptoms, but nonstimulants (atomoxetine) have the pharmacological advantage of also mitigating the effects of sympathetic load (sympatholysis) and anxiety (anxiolysis). Given the physiological uncertainty of extended stimulant use for adults, especially older adults with vulnerable cardiovascular systems, clinicians should proceed cautiously when considering initiating or sustaining stimulant therapy. For long-term treatment of ADHD in adults, clinicians should consider nonstimulant alternatives (including behavioral therapy) due to the comparatively lower side effect risk and the possible additional benefit in patients with behavioral health comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Long-term safety of stimulant use for adults with ADHD is uncertain, as existing studies are limited in quality and duration. This is particularly important for military populations with higher rates of mental health conditions. Managing ADHD and related conditions requires prioritizing cardiovascular safety, especially for older adults. Nonstimulant options can be helpful, especially in comorbid psychiatric disease. Before treating ADHD, ruling out and controlling other behavioral health conditions is essential to avoid masking or worsening underlying issues and reducing unnecessary medication side effects.

Defining comprehensiveness in primary care: a scoping review.

Introduction The term comprehensiveness was introduced into the literature as early as the 1960s and is regarded as a core attribute of primary care. Although comprehensive care is a primary care research priority encompassing patient and provider experience, cost, and health outcomes, there has been a lack of focus on consolidating existing definitions. Aim To unify definitions of comprehensiveness in primary care. Methods The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was followed, hierarchically filtering 'comprehensiveness' MeSH terms and literature-defined affiliated terms. Snowballing methods were used to include additional literature from known experts. Articles were systematically reviewed with a three-clinician team. Results The initial search populated 679 607 articles, of which 25 were included. Identified key terms include: whole-person care (WPC), range of services, and referral to specialty care. WPC is the extent which primary care physicians (PCPs) consider the physical, emotional, and social aspects of a patient's health. It has been shown to positively impact clinical costs and outcomes, satisfaction, and trust. Range of services encompasses most health problems to reduce unnecessary spending on specialty care and promote continuity. Referral to specialty care is utilized when PCPs cannot provide the necessary services - balancing depth and breadth of care with the limitations of primary care scope. Discussion This scoping review unified the interrelatedness of comprehensiveness's main aspects - whole-person care, range of services, and referral to specialty care - framing a working, evidence-based definition: managing most medical care needs and temporarily complementing care with special integrated services in the context of patient's values, preferences, and beliefs.

Comparable quality performance between telemedicine and office-based care for abnormal BMI screening and management.

Background: Despite widespread adoption during COVID-19, there is limited evidence supporting the quality of telemedicine care in managing patients with abnormal BMI. Objective: To evaluate the comparability of telemedicine and in-person (office) quality performance for abnormal body mass index (BMI kg/m2) screening and management in primary care. Methods: This retrospective cohort study measured Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality performance for abnormal BMI screening (patients with BMIs <18.5 or >25 kg/m2 and a qualifying documented follow up plan) across an 8-hospital integrated health system seen via primary care from 4/1/20 - 9/30/21. Encounters were divided into three exposure groups: office (excluding telemedicine), telemedicine (excluding office), and blended telemedicine (office + telemedicine). Demographic stratification compared group composition. Chi squared tests determined statistical differences in quality performance (p = <0.05). Results: Demographics of sub-groups for the 287,387 patients (office: 222,333; telemedicine: 1,556; blended-telemedicine: 63,489) revealed a modest female predominance, majority ages 26-70, mostly White non-Hispanics of low health risk, and the majority BMI representation was overweight, followed closely by class 1 obesity. In both HEDIS specified and HEDIS modified performance, blended-telemedicine performed better than office (12.56%, 95% CI 12.29%-13.01%; 11.16%, 95% CI: 10.85%-11.48%; p < 0.0001); office performed better than telemedicine (4.29%, 95% CI 2.84%-5.54%; 4.79%, 95% CI 3.99%-5.35%; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Quality performance was highest for blended-telemedicine, followed by office-only, then telemedicine-only. Given the known cost savings, adding telemedicine as a care venue might promote value within health systems without negatively impacting HEDIS performance.

Comparison of Quality Performance Measures for Patients Receiving In-Person vs Telemedicine Primary Care in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Despite its rapid adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unknown how telemedicine augmentation of in-person office visits has affected quality of patient care. Objective: To examine whether quality of care among patients exposed to telemedicine differs from patients with only in-person office-based care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, standardized quality measures were compared between patients with office-only (in-person) visits vs telemedicine visits from March 1, 2020, to November 30, 2021, across more than 200 outpatient care sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Exposures: Patients completing telemedicine (video) visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: χ2 tests determined statistically significant differences in Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality performance measures between office-only and telemedicine-exposed groups. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities. Results: The study included 526 874 patients (409 732 office-only; 117 142 telemedicine exposed) with a comparable distribution of sex (196 285 [49.7%] and 74 878 [63.9%] women), predominance of non-Hispanic (348 127 [85.0%] and 105 408 [90.0%]) and White individuals (334 215 [81.6%] and 100 586 [85.9%]), aged 18 to 65 years (239 938 [58.6%] and 91 100 [77.8%]), with low overall health risk scores (373 176 [91.1%] and 100 076 [85.4%]) and commercial (227 259 [55.5%] and 81 552 [69.6%]) or Medicare or Medicaid (176 671 [43.1%] and 52 513 [44.8%]) insurance. For medication-based measures, patients with office-only visits had better performance, but only 3 of 5 measures had significant differences: patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) receiving antiplatelets (absolute percentage difference [APD], 6.71%; 95% CI, 5.45%-7.98%; P < .001), patients with CVD receiving statins (APD, 1.79%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.71%; P = .001), and avoiding antibiotics for patients with upper respiratory infections (APD, 2.05%; 95% CI, 1.17%-2.96%; P < .001); there were insignificant differences for patients with heart failure receiving ß-blockers and those with diabetes receiving statins. For all 4 testing-based measures, patients with telemedicine exposure had significantly better performance differences: patients with CVD with lipid panels (APD, 7.04%; 95% CI, 5.95%-8.10%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with hemoglobin A1c testing (APD, 5.14%; 95% CI, 4.25%-6.01%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with nephropathy testing (APD, 9.28%; 95% CI, 8.22%-10.32%; P < .001), and blood pressure control (APD, 3.55%; 95% CI, 3.25%-3.85%; P < .001); this was also true for all 7 counseling-based measures: cervical cancer screening (APD, 12.33%; 95% CI, 11.80%-12.85%; P < .001), breast cancer screening (APD, 16.90%; 95% CI, 16.07%-17.71%; P < .001), colon cancer screening (APD, 8.20%; 95% CI, 7.65%-8.75%; P < .001), tobacco counseling and intervention (APD, 12.67%; 95% CI, 11.84%-13.50%; P < .001), influenza vaccination (APD, 9.76%; 95% CI, 9.47%-10.05%; P < .001), pneumococcal vaccination (APD, 5.41%; 95% CI, 4.85%-6.00%; P < .001), and depression screening (APD, 4.85%; 95% CI, 4.66%-5.04%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with telemedicine exposure, there was a largely favorable association with quality of primary care. This supports telemedicine's value potential for augmenting care capacity, especially in chronic disease management and preventive care. This study also identifies a need for understanding relationships between the optimal blend of telemedicine and in-office care.

Racial Disparity in Pediatric Radiography for Forearm Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: The most common pediatric fractures involve the upper extremity. But there is limited study on racial disparity in diagnostic radiography for pediatric fractures. The literature has described the diagnostic accuracy of alternative diagnostic modalities with promising evidence of its ability to mitigate health inequity in primary care. Our objective was to understand if racial disparity exists in radiography for pediatric fractures. METHODS: In this four-year retrospective cohort study, we analyzed rates of radiographic imaging and abnormal radiograph detection in 4280 pediatric patients (ages 3-18 years) who presented with chief complaints of arm or wrist pain and trauma-related International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes. We compared White children to all other races and stratified by emergency departments (ED) vs all other primary care ambulatory service lines.  Results: Non-White patients had lower imaging rate differences and lower odds receiving imaging in both ambulatory settings (0.65915, P = 0.0162; -5.4%, P = 0.0143) and in EDs (0.7732, P = 0.0369; -4.7%, P = 0.0368). Additionally, non-Whites in the ED had lower rates and lower odds of abnormal radiographs (-7.3%, P = 0.0084; 0.6794, P = 0.0089).  Conclusion: Non-White patients seen in emergency and ambulatory settings had lower imaging rates for traumatic arm and wrist pain compared to White patients, indicating a healthcare disparity in pediatric imaging. Higher-level studies investigating the effect of social determinants of health, more detailed patient data, and provider bias on facture care equity are needed to understand underlying reasons for observed differences.

Comparable Quality Performance of Acute Low-Back Pain Care in Telemedicine and Office-Based Cohorts.

Introduction: Back pain is among the most common presentations in primary care offices. National organizations have standardized the appropriate use of imaging for acute low-back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of imaging in LBP between telemedicine and in-person clinical encounters. Methods: This retrospective cohort compared secondary data from 20,624 telemedicine and office encounters in a large nonprofit health system from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021. The proportion of patients aged 18-50 years who did not receive imaging for acute LBP (X-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) within 28 days of the provider encounter was measured according to Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set specifications. Performance was compared across race, ethnicity, age, body mass index, overall risk score, and insurance type. Chi-squared tests determined significant differences between cohorts (p < 0.05). Results: Patients seen via telemedicine had significantly lower rates of imaging within 28 days of their physician encounter (office: 16.32%, telemedicine: 11.20%; difference: 5.12%; p < 0.01). This was consistent across racial, ethnic, and risk score subgroups. Discussion: For practices and health systems, telemedicine might be a higher value approach for initial evaluation of acute LBP in primary care. For policy makers, telemedicine can save on health care costs without negatively impacting quality performance measures. Conclusions: Telemedicine is unlikely to compromise quality of acute LBP care, supporting this virtual space as an alternative care venue. The most beneficial use of telemedicine might be triaging initial encounters of acute LBP in primary care. Stronger evidence could support its long-term potential for driving value through cost savings.

Enhancing Value-Based Care With a Walk-in Clinic: A Primary Care Provider Intervention to Decrease Low Acuity Emergency Department Overutilization.

Background Emergency department overutilization is a known contributor to the high per-capita healthcare cost in the United States. There is a knowledge gap regarding the substitution effect of walk-in clinic availability in primary care provider (PCP) offices and emergency department utilization (EDU). This study evaluates associations between PCP availability and EDU and analyzes the potential cost savings for health systems. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis compared low acuity EDU rates in established patients at a family medicine residency's PCP office before and after walk-in clinic implementation. The practice had 12 providers, 12 residents, and a patient panel of approximately 7,000-8,000. Inclusion criteria were met if patients were: (1) established with the PCP office, (2) had a low acuity emergency department (ED) visit (emergency index score level 4 or 5) OR had a walk-in clinic visit at the family practice. ED visits were tracked from January 2018 to January 2020 and encounters were compared numbers to pre and post-implementation of a walk-in clinic. Cost savings for comparable management was estimated with average price differences for low acuity encounters in the ED versus clinic. Results Over the two-year timeframe, there were 10,962 total visits to the ED by family practice patients, 4,250 of these visits were low acuity. Despite gross monthly increases of EDU from 2018-2020, after implementation of a walk-in clinic in 2019, rates of total EDU decreased by 1.5% and low acuity utilization rates also decreased. The average annual patient census nearly doubled from 5,763 to 8,042. T-tests confirmed statistical significance with p-values <0.05. Average low acuity ED visits ($437) cost 4.9 times more than comparable PCP office visits ($91). Managing 2,387 patients in the walk-in clinic resulted in an estimated annual cost savings of $825,902. Conclusion Extended walk-in availability in primary care offices provides non-ED capacity for low acuity management and might mitigate low acuity ED utilization while providing more cost-effective care. This study supports similarly described pre-hospital diversions in reducing ED over-utilization by increasing access to care. Higher levels of evidence are needed to establish causality.

Atypical presentation of type B aortic dissection mimicking appendicitis managed medically.

This is a case of a 53-year-old male patient with a history of hypertension who developed sudden onset of right lower quadrant pain. On arrival, chest X-ray showed prominent aortic arch without cardiomegaly. CT of the abdomen/pelvis showed aortic dissection in descending aorta without rupture. CT of the chest displayed sparing of ascending and aortic arch. Ultrasound Doppler of the kidney displayed mild renal artery stenosis. Differential diagnosis was acute appendicitis, acute ureteric and severe gastroenteritis. The patient was started on oral blood pressure (BP) medicine to titrate off intravenous nicardipine and esmolol drip. After 10 days, he was switched to oral BP medicine. His leg pain was resolved with normal palpable pulse. One week later, his kidney function worsened. Thus, Lasix and minoxidil were stopped. The patient had no chest/abdominal pain and was tolerating the medicine well during his 2-week follow-up. Acute aortic dissection can be a fatal clinical emergency. Timing is critical during diagnosis and management of patients.