ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patient education is a core component of treating fibromyalgia and central sensitization disorders. We sought to evaluate whether patients with fibromyalgia prefer virtual or in-person educational classes as part of their treatment program, identify underlying factors with their educational modality choice, and highlight benefits or barriers associated with in-person or online educational sessions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with a qualitative feedback component was utilized. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous survey was distributed to all participants (in-person and virtual) of the fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue clinic treatment program from October 2021 through March 2022. RESULTS: In total 90 participants completed the survey. Nearly all (94%) agreed that the pathophysiologic education was relevant and valuable and (98%) agreed to feeling confident with implementing management strategies. Perceived connection between the participants varied between groups (85% of in-person vs 48% of online; p < .001), as did perceived engagement (100% of in-person vs 71% of online; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients value education and find it useful in treating fibromyalgia, regardless of the educational modality. The online group reported more limitations including less engagement, class participation, and connection with peers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As virtual education platforms become more widely available and may be easier to access than in-person options, it is important to understand patient preferences, benefits, and disadvantages of educational modalities to ensure education and patient outcomes remain equitable.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To decrease the electronic health record (EHR) clerical burden and improve patient/clinician satisfaction, allied health staff were trained as visit facilitators (VFs) to assist the physician in clinical and administrative tasks. Patients and Methods: From December 7, 2020, to October 11, 2021, patients with complex medical conditions were evaluated by an internal medicine physician in an outpatient general internal medicine (GIM) consultative practice at a tertiary care institution. A VF assisted with specific tasks before, during, and after the clinical visit. Presurvey and postsurvey assessments were performed to understand the effect of the VF on clinical tasks as perceived by the physician. Results: A total of 57 GIM physicians used a VF, and 41 (82%) physicians and 39 (79%) physicians completed the pre-VF and post-VF surveys, respectively. Physicians reported a significant reduction in time reviewing outside materials, updating pertinent information, and creating/modifying EHR orders (P<.05). Clinicians reported improved interactions with patients and on-time completion of clinical documentation. In the pre-VF survey, "too much time spent" was the most common response for reviewing outside material, placing/modifying orders, completing documentation/clinical notes, resolving in-baskets, completing dismissal letters, and completing tasks outside of work hours. In the post-VF survey, "too much time spent" was not the most common answer to any question. Satisfaction improved in all areas (P<.05). Conclusion: VFs significantly reduced the EHR clinical burden and improved GIM physician practice satisfaction. This model can potentially be used in a wide range of medical practices.
