Telemedicine Implementation for Safety Net Populations: A Systematic Review.

Background: Telemedicine systems were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19. However, little is known about their effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability for safety net populations. This study systematically reviewed primary care telemedicine implementation and effectiveness in safety net settings. Methods: We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles on telemedicine implementation from 2013 to 2021. The search was done between June and December 2021. Included articles focused on health care organizations that primarily serve low-income and/or rural populations in the United States. We screened 244 articles from an initial search of 343 articles and extracted and analyzed data from N = 45 articles. Results: Nine (20%) of 45 articles were randomized controlled trials. N = 22 reported findings for at least one marginalized group (i.e., racial/ethnic minority, 65 years+, limited English proficiency). Only n = 19 (42%) included African American/Black patients in demographics descriptions, n = 14 (31%) LatinX/Hispanic patients, n = 4 (9%) Asian patients, n = 4 (9%) patients aged 65+ years, and n = 4 (9%) patients with limited English proficiency. Results show telemedicine can provide high-quality primary care that is more accessible and affordable. Fifteen studies assessed barriers and facilitators to telemedicine implementation. Common barriers were billing/administrative workflow disruption (n = 9, 20%), broadband access/quality (n = 5, 11%), and patient preference for in-person care (n = 4, 9%). Facilitators included efficiency gains (n = 6, 13%), patient acceptance (n = 3, 7%), and enhanced access (n = 3, 7%). Conclusions: Telemedicine is an acceptable care modality to deliver primary care in safety net settings. Future studies should compare telemedicine and in-person care quality and test strategies to improve telemedicine implementation in safety net settings.

Care Redesign to Support Telemedicine Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Federally Qualified Health Center Personnel Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) rapidly adopted and implemented telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzes FQHC personnel accounts of care redesign strategies to support telemedicine implementation in 2020 and 2021, and identifies improvement opportunities. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with clinic personnel (n = 15) at 2 FQHCs in Northern California (December 2020-April 2021) to examine telemedicine adoption and use of audio-video and audio-only/phone telemedicine encounters. RESULTS: FQHC clinicians and staff reported that telemedicine implementation increased access to care and reduced appointment no-show rates. However, a reported reduced ability to develop and foster interpersonal connections negatively impacted clinician-patient relationships. Care redesign strategies included systems to triage appointment types (in-person versus virtual), work-arounds to screen for and address social and nonmedical needs, and new protocols to navigate privacy needs for first time telemedicine users. In addition, increasing remote monitoring capabilities was deemed an important priority for improving telemedicine use for marginalized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine implementation in FQHCs involved care redesign to optimize virtual interactions and care processes. Guidelines and evidence-based practices are needed to improve telemedicine use in FQHCs, including strategies to support interpersonal connections; approaches to virtually screen for and address social needs; and protocols to further mitigate privacy issues. Future research is needed to identify when telemedicine can optimally supplement in-person care to improve patient outcomes and clinic efficiency, particularly in safety net settings.

Implementation of a universal screening and follow-up care system for pediatric developmental and behavioral health in federally qualified health center sites.

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), many pediatric practices still do not have standardized screening processes in place to identify children with developmental delays. From April 2014 to April 2017, six federally qualified health center (FQHC) sites in Northern California implemented an intervention to increase (a) standardized developmental screening at recommended intervals and (b) follow-up care and support for early intervention services. METHOD: The intervention aimed to optimize each site's screening processes, supported by an automated electronic tablet-based system. To improve follow-up support, social workers were hired to conduct follow-up clinical assessments, provide psychosocial education and treatment, provide referrals and case management support, and collaborate with service partners. We analyze operational and implementation data to characterize site adoption, patient reach, implementation processes, and intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: During the intervention's final year, when tablet-based screening was adopted, the sites screened an estimated 6,550 children ages 0-18 at 23 intervals in three domains (developmental, autism, and psychosocial/behavioral), compared to a baseline where they screened ages 0-3 at four intervals in one domain. Screening rates increased from 65.3% to 75.5% after automation was extended from the first to the second site, then to 91.8% after automation was expanded to the remaining sites. Follow-up visit rates ranged between 74% and 88%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multicomponent developmental and behavioral health screening and follow-up care intervention enabled FQHC sites to meet AAP recommendations and provide follow-up support. Disseminating the intervention may support population-level improvement in early detection and intervention for developmental delays and behavioral health concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Telemedicine implementation and use in community health centers during COVID-19: Clinic personnel and patient perspectives.

In March 2020, federal and state telehealth policy changes catalyzed telemedicine adoption and use in community health centers. There is a dearth of evidence on telemedicine implementation and use in these safety net settings and a lack of information reflecting the perspectives of patients with limited English proficiency. We conducted in-depth interviews with clinic personnel and patients during the pandemic in two federally qualified health centers that primarily serve Chinese and Latino immigrants. Twenty-four interviews (clinic personnel â€‹= â€‹15; patients who primarily speak a language other than English â€‹= â€‹9) were completed remotely between December 2020 and April 2021. Interview scripts included questions about their telemedicine experiences, technology, resources and needs, barriers, facilitators, language access, and continued use, with a brief socio-demographic survey. Data analyses involved a primarily deductive approach and thematic analysis of transcript content. Both FQHCs adopted telemedicine in a few weeks and transitioned primarily to video and audio-only visits within two months. Findings reveal third-party language interpretation services were challenging to integrate into telemedicine video visits. Bilingual personnel who provided language concordant care were seen as essential for efficient and high-quality patient telemedicine experiences. Audio-only visits were of particular benefit to reach patients of older age, with limited English proficiency, and with limited digital literacy. Continued use of telemedicine is contingent on reimbursement policy decisions and interventions to increase patient digital literacy and technological resources. Results highlight the importance of reimbursing audio-only visits post-pandemic and investing in efforts to improve the quality of language services in telemedicine encounters.

Comparing health care system and physician practice influences on social risk screening.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems can support dissemination of innovations, such as social risk screening in physician practices, but to date, no studies have examined the association of health system characteristics and practice-level adoption of social risk screening. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine the association of multilevel organizational capabilities and adoption of social risk screening among system-owned physician practices. METHODOLOGY: Secondary analyses of the 2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems were conducted. Multilevel linear regression models examined physician practice and system characteristics associated with practice adoption of screening for five social risks (food insecurity, housing instability, utility needs, interpersonal violence, and transportation needs), accounting for clustering of practices within systems using random effects. RESULTS: System-owned practices screened for an average of 1.7 of the five social risks assessed. The intraclass correlation indicated 16% of practice variation in social risk screening was attributable to differences between their health systems owners, with 84% attributable to differences between individual practices. Practices owned by systems with multiple hospitals screened for an additional 0.44 social risks (p = .046) relative to practices of systems without hospitals. Practice characteristics associated with social risk screening included health information technology capacity (ß = 0.20, p = .005), innovation culture (ß = 0.26, p < .001), and patient engagement strategies (ß = 0.57, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Health care system capabilities account for less variation in physician practice adoption of social risk screening compared to practice-level capabilities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to expand social risk screening among system-owned physician practices should focus on supporting practice capabilities, including enhancing health information technology, promoting an innovative organizational culture, and advancing patient engagement strategies.