A Systematic Review of Physical Examination Components Adapted for Telemedicine.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a rapid, transformative adoption of telemedicine to maintain patient access to care. As clinicians made the shift from in-person to virtual practice, they faced a paucity of established and reliable clinical examination standards for virtual care settings. In this systematic review, we summarize the accuracy and reliability of virtual assessments compared with traditional in-person examination tools. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception through September 2019 and included additional studies from handsearching of reference lists. We included studies that compared synchronous video (except allowing for audio-only modality for cardiopulmonary exams) with in-person clinical assessments of patients in various settings. We excluded behavioral health and dermatological assessments. Two investigators abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Results: A total of 64 studies were included and categorized into 5 clinical domains: neurological (N = 41), HEENT (head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat; N = 5), cardiopulmonary (N = 5), musculoskeletal (N = 8), and assessment of critically ill patients (N = 5). The cognitive assessment within the neurological exam was by far the most studied (N = 19) with the Mini-Mental Status Exam found to be highly reliable in multiple settings. Most studies showed relatively good reliability of the virtual assessment, although sample sizes were often small (<50 participants). Conclusions: Overall, virtual assessments performed similarly to in-person exam components for diagnostic accuracy but had a wide range of interrater reliability. The high heterogeneity in population, setting, and outcomes reported across studies render it difficult to draw broad conclusions on the most effective exam components to adopt into clinical practice. Further work is needed to identify virtual exam components that improve diagnostic accuracy.

The Effect of Geographic Cohorting of Inpatient Teaching Services on Patient Outcomes and Resident Experience.

BACKGROUND: Geographic cohorting is a hospital admission structure in which every patient on a given physician team is admitted to a dedicated hospital unit. Little is known about the long-term impact of this admission structure on patient outcomes and resident satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of geographic cohorting on patient outcomes and resident satisfaction among inpatient internal medicine teaching services within an academic hospital. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis examining patient outcomes before and after the transition to geographic cohorting of our 3 inpatient teaching services within a 520-bed academic hospital in November 2017. The study observation period spanned from January 2017 to October 2018, allowing for a 2-month run-in period (November-December 2017). PARTICIPANTS: We included patients discharged from the inpatient teaching teams during the study period. We excluded patients admitted to the ICU and observation admissions. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was 6-month mortality adjusted for patient age, sex, race, insurance status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), 7-day and 30-day readmission rate, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores, and resident evaluations of the rotation. KEY RESULTS: During the observation period, 1720 patients (mean age 64, 53% female, 56% white, 62% Medicare-insured, mean CCI 1.57) were eligible for inclusion in the final adjusted model. We did not detect a significant change in 6-month mortality, LOS, and 7-day or 30-day readmission rates. HCAHPS scores remained unchanged (77 to 80% top box, P = 0.19), while resident evaluations of the rotation significantly improved (mean overall score 3.7 to 4.0, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic cohorting was associated with increased resident satisfaction while achieving comparable patient outcomes to those of traditional hospital admitting models.

Professional agency vs consumer directed care workers: Outcomes in managed care.

Direct care workers are a major part of the long-term services and supports (LTSS) needed to address the health of individuals and accounted for $112 billion in United States spending in 2015. Direct care workers are hired within professional agency models (PAMs) or consumer-directed models (CDMs) where workers (including family) are contracted by the individual to obtain services. We sought to identify differences in cost and utilisation outcomes between PAM and CDM participants. Data were obtained from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Insurance Services Division from the participants enrolled in UPMC Community HealthChoices in Pennsylvania during 2018. A retrospective, observational cohort study design was performed using claims data. Utilisation outcomes were assessed using multivariate logistic regression and cost outcomes by linear regression. The 3,232 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 69% (N = 2,217) were in a PAM, 23% (N = 752) were in a CDM, and 8% (N = 263) used a combination of services. PAM groups were older (mean 62.4 years vs 54.1 years), more likely to be women (69.0% vs 62.8%), and had more healthcare needs. Hospital utilisation was the same among groups. However, total cost was lower in CDM groups due to differences in LTSS costs between CDM and PAM services. Among dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries receiving LTSS, there are significant differences in age, gender, race and health needs. While hospital utilisation was not different between groups, CDM groups had lower total costs of care compared to PAM. These findings have implications for families, policymakers and insurers in helping to govern community LTSS while supporting member autonomy.

Imaging versus Intervention in Managing Small Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend active surveillance with serial magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for management of small, asymptomatic unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms (UIAs). We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to immediate surgery. METHODS: We developed a Markov cost-effectiveness model simulating patients with small (<7 mm) UIAs managed by active surveillance via MRA, immediate surgery, or watchful waiting. Inputs for the model were abstracted from the literature and used to construct a comprehensive model following persons from diagnosis to death. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime medical costs (2015 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness, deterministic, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Immediate surgical treatment was the most cost-effective management strategy for small UIAs with ICER of USD 45,772 relative to active surveillance. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated immediate surgery was the preferred strategy, if rupture rate was >0.1%/year and if the diagnosis age was <70 years, while active surveillance was preferred if surgical complication risk was >11%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay of USD 100,000/QALY, immediate surgical treatment was the most cost-effective strategy in 64% of iterations. CONCLUSION: Immediate surgical treatment is a cost-effective strategy for initial management of small UIAs in patients <70 years of age. While more costly than MRA, surgical treatment increased QALY. The cost-effectiveness of immediate surgery is highly sensitive to diagnosis age, rupture rate, and surgical complication risk. Though there are a wide range of rupture rates and complications associated with treatment, this analysis supports the treatment of small, unruptured anterior circulation intracranial aneurysms in patients <70 years of age.

Comprehensive Curriculum for Internal Medicine Residents on Primary Care of Patients Identifying as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.

Introduction: Significant gaps remain in the training of health professionals regarding the care of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). Although curricula have been developed at the undergraduate medical education level, few materials address the education of graduate medical trainees. The purpose of this curriculum was to develop case-based modules targeting internal medicine residents to address LGBT primary health care. Methods: We designed and implemented a four-module, case-based, interactive curriculum at one university's internal medicine residency program. The modules contained facilitator and learner guides and addressed four main content areas: understanding gender and sexuality; performing a sensitive history and physical examination; health promotion and disease prevention; and mental health, violence, and reproductive health. Knowledge, perceived importance, and confidence were assessed before and after each module to assess curricular effectiveness and acceptability. General medicine faculty delivered these modules. Results: Perceived importance of LGBT topics was high at baseline and remained high after the curricular intervention. Confidence significantly increased in many areas, including being able to provide resources to patients and to institute gender-affirming practices (p < .05). Knowledge improved significantly on almost all topics (p < .0001). Faculty felt the materials gave enough preparation to teach, and residents perceived that the faculty were knowledgeable. Discussion: This resource provides an effective curriculum for training internal medicine residents to better understand and feel confident addressing LGBT primary health care needs. Despite limitations, this is an easily transferable curriculum that can be adapted in a variety of curricular settings.

Impact of Healthcare Delivery System Type on Clinical, Utilization, and Cost Outcomes of Patient-Centered Medical Homes: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. DISCUSSION: Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.