Patient-Level Factors Associated with Utilization of Telemedicine Services from a Free Clinic During COVID-19.

Background: Disparities in telemedicine use by race, age, and income have been consistently documented. To date, research has focused on telemedicine use among patients with adequate insurance coverage. To address this gap, this study identifies patient-level factors associated with telemedicine use during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic among one free clinic network's patients who are underinsured or uninsured. Methods: Electronic health record data were reviewed for patient-level data on patients seen from March 2020 to September 2020. Patients were grouped by telemedicine use history. We controlled for sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and comorbidities. Logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: Across 198 adult patients, 56.6% received telemedicine care. Of these, 99.1% elected for audio-only telemedicine instead of video telemedicine. Telemedicine use was more likely among those living within 15 miles of their clinic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-11.53). It was less likely to be used by older patients (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00), patients of male sex (aOR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.18-0.92), and those establishing care as a new patient (aOR = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.07). Conclusion: The moderate usage of telemedicine suggests that its implementation in free clinics may be feasible. Solutions specific to patients with smartphone-only internet access are needed to improve the use of video telemedicine as smartphone-specific factors (e.g., data use limits) may influence the ability for underserved patients to receive video telemedicine.

An Interprofessional Primary Care-Based Transition of Care Clinic to Reduce Hospital Readmission.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission is a major burden for patients, caregivers, and health systems. Some readmissions may be avoided through timely follow-up in a transition clinic with an interprofessional approach to care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated a cohort of adults >18 years, n = 203, who are patients of an affiliated academic internal medicine clinic with University of Florida Health and discharged from the hospital between November 1, 2016, and May 1, 2017. We sought to determine if follow-up in an interprofessional transition-of-care (TCM) clinic after discharge was associated with a reduction in hospital readmission when compared to standard follow-up at 30, 60, and 90 days. RESULTS: Follow-up in the TCM clinic was associated with reduced odds of hospital readmission at 90 days by 60%, (odds ratio [OR]: 0.40, P = 0.044, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.97). Although the clinic failed to demonstrate a statistically significant association between clinic follow-up and in readmission at 30 (OR: 0.66, P = 0.36, 95% CI 0.27-1.59) and 60 days (OR: 0.67, P = 0.31, 95% CI 0.31-1.47), fewer readmissions were seen in patients seen by the TCM clinic. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care nested interprofessional transition-of-care clinic was associated with a reduction in hospital readmission.

The Effects of Resident Peer- and Self-Chart Review on Outpatient Laboratory Result Follow-up.

PURPOSE: Performing and teaching appropriate follow-up of outpatient laboratory results (LRs) is a challenge. The authors tested peer-review among residents as a potentially valuable intervention. METHOD: Investigators assigned residents to perform self-review (n = 27), peer-review (n = 21), or self- + peer-review (n = 30) of outpatient charts. They also compared residence performance with that of historical controls (n = 20). In September 2012, residents examined 10 LRs from April 2012 onward. A second review in November 2012 ascertained whether performing chart review improved residents' practice behaviors. RESULTS: Initially, the least-square (LS) mean number of LRs without documentation of follow-up per resident in the self-, peer-, and self- + peer-review group was, respectively, 0.5 (SD 1.0), 1.0 (SD 1.7), and 0.9 (SD 1.3), and post intervention, this was 1.0 (SD 0.2), 0.3 (SD 0.2), and 0.6 (SD 0.2) (self- versus peer-review P = .03). Initially the LS mean follow-up time per resident in the self-, peer-, and self- + peer-review group was, respectively, 4.2 (SD 1.2), 6.9 (SD 1.4), and 5.9 (SD 1.2) days, and after the intervention, LS mean time was 5.0 (SD 0.5), 2.5 (SD 0.6), and 3.9 (SD 0.5) days (self- versus peer-review P < .01). Self-review was not associated with significant improvements in practice. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of self- and peer-review, only residents who performed peer-review demonstrated significant improvements in their documentation practices. These findings support the use of resident peer-review in improving LR follow-up, and potentially, in other, broader resident quality improvement initiatives.