Understanding Patients' Negative Experiences with Telehealth: A Content Analysis of Survey Data.

Understanding differences in how demographic groups experience telehealth may be relevant in addressing potential disparities in telehealth usage. We seek to identify and examine themes most pertinent to patients' negative telehealth experiences by age and race in order to inform interventions to improve patients' future telehealth experiences. We performed a content analysis of Press Ganey patient experience surveys from adult patients at 17 primary care sites of a large, public healthcare system with visits from April 30, 2020 to August 27, 2021. We used sentiment analysis to identify negative comments. We coded for content themes and analyzed their frequency, stratifying by age and race. We analyzed 745 negative comments. Most frequent themes differed by demographic categories, but overall, the most commonly applied codes were "Contacting the Clinic" (n = 97), "Connectivity" (n = 84), and "Webside Manner" (n = 79). The top three codes accounted for >40% of the negative codes in each race category and >35% of the negative codes in each age category. While there were common negative experiences among groups, patients of different demographics highlighted different aspects of their telehealth experiences for potential improvement.

Patient Experiences With Telehealth During Versus After a System-Wide Telehealth Mandate During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This study examines whether patients' telehealth experiences differed during a health system mandate for telehealth encounters due to the COVID-19 pandemic versus after the mandate was relaxed. Patient experience surveys from telehealth visits across 17 adult (age 18+) primary care sites at a large, urban public health system were analyzed during two periods: when a mandate was active (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) and when the mandate was relaxed and any appointment modality was available (July 1, 2020-November 30, 2021). Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) comparing top-box percentages of survey responses at multiple levels: individual questions, four domains, and all questions together as a composite. Key findings: Patients had higher odds of selecting top-box answers in the elective telehealth period for the Care Provider (1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.16]) and General Assessment (1.13 [1.02, 1.24]) domains and the survey composite (1.08 [1.04, 1.13]), but there was no difference for individual questions.Women reported more positive experiences during the elective telehealth period in the Access (1.22 [1.01, 1.47]), Care Provider (1.32 [1.17, 1.50]), and Telemedicine Technology (1.24 [1.04, 1.50]) domains.Our findings suggest that patients had better telehealth experiences when mandates were relaxed.

Effect of a Telehealth Navigator Program on Video Visit Scheduling and Completion in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Patients and clinicians face challenges in participating in video telehealth visits. Patient navigation has been effective in other settings in enhancing patients' engagement with clinical programs. Our objective was to assess whether implementing a telehealth navigator program to support patients and clinicians affected video visit scheduling, video usage, and non-attendance. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental quality improvement project using difference-in-differences. We included data from 17 adult primary care sites at a large, urban public healthcare system from October 1, 2021 to October 31, 2022. Six sites received telehealth navigators and 11 sites were used as comparators. Navigators contacted patients (by phone) with upcoming video visits to assess and address potential barriers to successful video visit completion. They also provided on-site support to patients and clinicians regarding telehealth visits and usage of an electronic patient portal. The primary outcomes were difference-in-differences for the proportion of telehealth visits scheduled and, separately, completed as video visits and non-attendance for visits scheduled as video visits. RESULTS: There were 65 488 and 71 504 scheduled telehealth appointments at intervention and non-intervention sites, respectively. The adjusted difference-in-differences for the proportion of telehealth visits scheduled as video was -9.1% [95% confidence interval -26.1%, 8.0%], the proportion of telehealth visits completed as video visits 1.3% [-4.9%, 7.4%], and non-attendance for visits scheduled as video visits -3.7% [-6.0%, -1.4%]. CONCLUSIONS: Sites with telehealth navigators had comparatively lower video visit non-attendance but did not have comparatively different video visit scheduling or completion rates. Despite this, navigators' on-the-ground presence can help identify opportunities for improvements in care design.

Relative billing complexity of in-person versus telehealth outpatient encounters.

RATIONALE: Video visits became more widely available during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the ongoing role and value of video visits in care delivery and how these may have changed over time are not well understood. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Compare the relative complexity of in-person versus video visits during the COVID-19 pandemic and describe the complexity of video visits over time. METHODS: We used billing data for in-person and video revisits from non-behavioural health specialities with the most video visit utilisation (≥50th percentile) at a large, urban, public healthcare system from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2022. We used current procedural terminology (CPT) codes as a proxy for information gathering and decision-making complexity and time spent on an encounter. We compared the distribution of CPT codes 99211-99215 between in-person and video visits using Fisher's exact tests. We used Spearman correlation to test for trends between proportions of CPT codes over time for video visits. RESULTS: Ten specialities (adult primary care, paediatrics, adult dermatology, bariatric surgery, paediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynaecologist, adult haematology/oncology, paediatric allergy/immunology, paediatric gastroenterology, and paediatric pulmonology) met inclusion criteria. For each speciality, proportions of each CPT code for in-person visits and for video visits varied significantly, and patterns of variation differed by speciality. For example, in adult primary care, video visits had smaller proportions of moderate/high complexity visits (99214 and 99215) and greater proportions of lower complexity visits (99211-99213) compared with in-person visits (p < 0.001), but in paediatric endocrinology, the opposite was seen (p < 0.001). Trends in CPT codes over time for video visits in each speciality were also mixed. CONCLUSION: In-person and video visits had differing proportions of complexity codes (typically skewing towards lower complexity for video visits). The complexity of video visits changed over time in many specialities. Observed patterns for both phenomena varied by speciality.

Patient satisfaction with telehealth versus in-person visits during COVID-19 at a large, public healthcare system.

RATIONALE: During the coronavirus disease pandemic, audio-only and video telehealth visits became more widely available, but the relative patient satisfaction between telehealth and in-person modalities is not well-described. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare patient satisfaction with audio-only, video, and in-person adult primary care visits at a large, urban public healthcare system. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used aggregated data from Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys at 17 primary care facilities at New York City Health + Hospitals for visits between 1 June 2021 to 30 November 2021. We compared mean scores for questions common to surveys for each modality in domains of Access, Care Provider, and Overall Assessment using pairwise comparisons with two-tailed t-tests. RESULTS: There were 7,183/79,562 (9.0%) respondents for in-person visits and 1,009/15,092 (6.7%) respondents for telehealth visits. Compared to respondents for in-person visits, respondents for telehealth visits were more likely to be aged 35-64 years, Asian, and speak English as their primary language, and less likely to be ≥65 years old, Black or other race, and speak Spanish or another language as their primary language (p < 0.001). Patients reported higher mean satisfaction for Access measures for telehealth visits than in-person visits (p < 0.001). For Care Provider satisfaction questions, video visits generally had higher mean scores than in-person and, in turn, audio-only visits. For Overall Assessment questions, video visits had higher mean scores than in-person and, subsequently, audio-only visits. CONCLUSION: Of the visit modalities, video visits had the highest mean satisfaction scores across all domains. Telehealth may improve experiences with access, but audio-only visits may provide poorer visit experiences.