The qualitative experience of telehealth access and clinical encounters in Australian healthcare during COVID-19: implications for policy

Background Adaptive models of healthcare delivery, such as telehealth consultations, have rapidly been adopted to ensure ongoing delivery of essential healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of how clinicians have adapted to telehealth. This study aims to explore the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region, and general practitioners (GP), including barriers, enablers and opportunities. Methods An interpretative qualitative study involving in-depth interviews explored the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region of Australia, and GPs, including barriers, enablers and opportunities. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Results Individual interviews were conducted with 10 specialists and five GPs. Key themes were identified: (1) transition to telehealth has been valuable but challenging; (2) persisting telehealth process barriers need to be addressed; (3) establishing when face-to-face consults are essential; (4) changes in workload pressures and potential for double-up; (5) essential modification of work practices; and (6) exploring what is needed going forward. Conclusions While there is a need to rationalize and optimize health access during a pandemic, we suggest that more needs to be done to improve telehealth going forward. Our results have important policy implications. Specifically, there is a need to effectively train clinicians to competently utilize and be confident using this telehealth and to educate patients on necessary skills and etiquette.

A clinical reasoning curriculum for medical students: an interim analysis

Objectives Diagnostic error is a critical patient safety issue that can be addressed in part through teaching clinical reasoning. Medical schools with clinical reasoning curricula tend to emphasize general reasoning concepts (e.g., differential diagnosis generation). Few published curricula go beyond teaching the steps in the diagnostic process to address how students should structure their knowledge to optimize diagnostic performance in future clinical encounters or to discuss elements outside of individual cognition that are essential to diagnosis. Methods In 2016, the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine launched a clinical reasoning curriculum that simultaneously emphasizes reasoning concepts and intentional knowledge construction; the roles of patients, families, interprofessional colleagues; and communication in diagnosis. The curriculum features a longitudinal thread beginning in first year, with an immersive three week diagnostic reasoning (DR) course in the second year. Students evaluated the DR course. Additionally, we conducted an audit of the multiyear clinical reasoning curriculum using the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine-Macy Foundation interprofessional diagnostic education competencies. Results Students rated DR highly (range 4.13–4.18/5 between 2018 and 2020) and reported high self-efficacy with applying clinical reasoning concepts and communicating reasoning to supervisors. A course audit demonstrated a disproportionate emphasis on individual (cognitive) competencies with inadequate attention to systems and team factors in diagnosis. Conclusions Our clinical reasoning curriculum led to high student self-efficacy. However, we stressed cognitive aspects of reasoning with limited instruction on teams and systems. Diagnosis education should expand beyond the cognitive- and physician-centric focus of most published reasoning courses.

Understanding Medication Adherence in Patients with Limited English Proficiency

Introduction. Approximately 41.6% of the US population who speak a language other than English (20% over all) and have limited English proficiency (LEP) status.1 Health outcomes for patients with LEP status or who are language discordant (speak a different language than their clinicians) have been studied in several settings, including the hospital and outpatient, with results widely demonstrating that these patients have worse outcomes when a professional interpreter is not used consistently. 2,3 The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of preferred language and language discordance on medication adherence. Methods. Data were collected via review of pharmacy-acquired medication profiles for three primary language cohorts: Nepali, Spanish, and English. Total Days of Adherence, Adherence Ratio, and Maximum Days Non-adherent were calculated and compared between language groups. We examined these statistics for regular and long-acting insulin, metformin and ACE inhibitors, testing for differences between language groups and those who experienced greater vs less than the median value for language concordant clinical encounters. Results. The most adherent group over all (highest adherence-ratio) were the Nepali-speaking, but the results showed high variability across outcomes and medications. Conclusions. After adjustment and stratification for greater vs lesser language concordant patient visit experience, we found that language-spoken plays an important role in the clinical encounter, and that LEP patients could have improved outcomes in their adherence to medications by having providers who speak their language or use an interpreter.

Facilitating Behavior Change in Plastic Surgery Patients Who Inject Drugs Through Motivational Interviewing

Background: Plastic surgeons treat a large volume of patients with upper limb morbidity resulting from intravenous drug use. The use of motivational interviewing by health care providers has demonstrated effectiveness in eliciting behavioral change, leading to improved health outcomes. This paper aims to explore the concept and process of motivational interviewing and its role in facilitating behavior change in the plastic surgery setting. Methods: The authors reviewed the literature on motivational interviewing in various health care settings. Results: Motivational interviewing, first developed in the field of psychology, has demonstrated effectiveness in facilitating behavior change in various clinical contexts, including brief clinical encounters. Using motivational interviewing guides the patient as they move through the stages of readiness for change in dealing with unhealthy behaviors. The authors demonstrate these techniques in a supplemental instructional video. Conclusions: Motivational interviewing is an evidence-based method for facilitating behavior change. All plastic surgeons should be prepared to use this person-centred counselling method in clinical practice.

Exploring the Value of Using Patient-Oriented MRI Reports in Clinical Practice

Purpose Standard radiology reports (SRR) are designed to communicate information between doctors. With many patients having instantaneous access to SRRs on patient portals, interpretation without guidance from doctors can cause anxiety and panic. We designed a patient-centred prostate MRI template report (PACERR) to address some of these challenges and tested whether PACERRs improve patient knowledge and experience. Materials and Methods Patients booked for clinical prostate MRI were randomly assigned to SRR or SRR + PACERR. Questionnaires included multiple-choice that targeted 4 domains (understanding, usefulness, next steps, emotional experience) hypothesized to improve with patient-centred reports and short answer questions, testing knowledge regarding MRI results. Clinical encounters were observed and recorded to explore whether adding PACERR improved communication. Likert scaled-responses and short-answer questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results Of the 40 participants, the majority were MRI naïve (70%). Patients receiving a PACERR had higher scores in the categories of patient understanding (mean: 4.17 vs. 3.39, p=0.006), usefulness (mean: 4.58 vs. 3.07, p<0.001), and identifying next steps (mean: 1.89 vs. 3.03, p=0.003) but not emotional experience (mean: 4.18 vs. 3.79, p=0.22). PACERR participants found the layout and design more patient friendly (mean: 4.47 vs. 2.61, p<0.001) and easier to understand (mean: 4.37 vs. 2.38, p<0.001). In the knowledge section, overall, the PACERR arm scored better (87% vs. 56%, p=0.004). Conclusion With the addition of Prostate MRI PACERR, participants had better understanding of their results and felt more prepared to involve themselves in discussions with their doctor.

Racial Differences in the Pathway to Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

This study examined differences in the pathway to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) between Black and White older adults. Using electronic health records from a large health system, we included 2,085 non-Hispanic Black and 6,269 non-Hispanic White older adults with a final/primary diagnosis of ADRD between 2014 and 2020. Black older adults were more likely to receive the ADRD diagnosis from a primary care provider (35.4% vs. 29.8%), during a hospital admission (19.5% vs. 13.6%), or during an emergency department visit (4.2% vs. 2.0%); but were less likely to be diagnosed by an ADRD specialist (31.6% vs. 45.2%). Black older adults had nearly twice as many clinical encounters in the two years prior to the ADRD diagnosis than their White counterparts (43 vs. 26). Despite having more clinical encounters, Black older adults were more likely to be at a later stage when diagnosed than White older adults.

Ushering in the Silver Age of Telehealth: Addressing Telehealth Disparities for Older Adults With Disabilities

One silver lining of COVID-19 has been the ushering in of ‘the golden age of telehealth’. However, this unplanned rapid conversion to telehealth left many providers and clinics unprepared to address systemic barriers that adversely affect older adults, particularly those with disabilities. Data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse suggest that the rapid adoption of telehealth in mental health clinics during COVID-19 widened telehealth utilization disparities for older Veterans (65+) with disabilities. With 4.5 million Veterans 55+ who have at least one disability more attention to addressing this widening gap is needed. For those with hearing, vision, and complex mobility impairments, there are unique challenges to initiating telehealth services. Dr. Touchett will present preliminary findings while discussing ethical and contextual considerations when using telehealth with older Veterans who have disabilities, while discussing ways to facilitate robust clinical encounters for this population.

“I am in other people's hands as regards my health” A sociological critique of health care encounters of people with cirrhosis. A secondary analysis

Objectives People with cirrhosis are encouraged to participate in shared decision-making with their doctors, but studies suggest that doctors limit the amount of information that is shared. In this study we explore the presence of medical power in clinical encounters in 2015 from a patient perspective and highlight its effects on healthcare interactions. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten people with cirrhosis attending a tertiary liver transplant centre in southern England. We explored their understanding of their disease and prognosis, and their participation in decision-making. Using the lens of medical power as a framework, we analysed findings into thematic sentences to summarise key ideas whilst preserving the complexity of identified concepts. Results Three key concepts explained patient perspectives of their communication with doctors: (1) portraying a positive image to doctors, (2) avoiding confrontation with doctors, (3) feeling powerless in the face of doctors’ medical knowledge. These concepts show deeper dynamic issues of power during healthcare encounters, illustrated by participants’ reluctance to voice their concerns and express themselves, challenge decisions, or seek information. Conclusion People with cirrhosis struggle to articulate their concerns or challenge decisions on their care and treatment and may worry about potential consequences. Our findings demonstrate the continuing persistence of issues of power at play in contemporary health care.

Quality of life, burden of treatment, safety, and avoidance of future events (QBSAfe) protocol: a pilot study testing an intervention to shift the paradigm of diabetes care

Background Diabetes care has been traditionally focused on targeting certain levels of glycemic control. This narrow emphasis may impose burdens on patients, including high treatment costs, illness-related work, or side effects from medications, while leaving other patient needs and goals under-addressed. The authors aim to shift the paradigm of care for people with diabetes, to focus on quality of life, burden of treatment, safety, and avoidance of future events: the QBSAfe domains. Methods We describe a single-arm pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using the QBSAfe agenda setting kit (ASK) during routine clinical visits. The set of 14 conversation aid cards was co-developed with patients, family caregivers, and clinicians. The ASK will be used in the context of a clinic visit, which will be recorded by members of the study team to identify patterns of clinician-patient conversations. Feasibility will be measured by the number of participants recruited, time to goal accrual, and completeness of data collection; acceptability will be assessed using post-visit surveys of patients and clinicians. A subgroup of patients will be invited to participate in post-visit qualitative semi-structured interviews for additional feedback. This study will be conducted across three medical centers in the Midwest and East Coast of the USA. Discussion Current healthcare infrastructure and associated demands and pressures on clinicians make changes in care difficult. However, this intervention has the potential to shift conversations during clinical encounters so they can address and directly respond to patient needs, symptoms, and capacity. As part of the QBSAfe ASK, the authors are also actively collaborating with a variety of stakeholders to create tools to help clinicians respond more effectively to patient concerns as they are raised during the clinical encounters. Additional insights about the use of the QBSAfe approach in the virtual space will be gathered during the process of our study due to restrictions imposed upon face to face visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04514523. Registered 17 August 2020—retrospectively registered.