Search

Introduction/Objectives: Telehealth services expanded during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Student-run free clinics (SRFC) deliver important health care services to underserved populations, who may face barriers to telehealth use. This study characterizes telehealth usage, experiences, and attitudes among individuals working in SRFCs. Methods: In November 2021, a survey adapted from the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition Telehealth Impact Physician Survey was sent to all registrants who identified themselves as students at the 2020 Society of Student-Run Free Clinics Annual Conference. Results: Thirty-eight individuals of 576 registrants (7%) representing 21 of 88 (24%) SRFCs completed the survey. Twenty-one (58%) individuals reported using telehealth in their clinic. Those that did not cited lack of infrastructure as a barrier (eg, broadband, Internet challenges, technology investments), were more likely to serve homeless (P = .01), and less likely to serve non-English speaking populations (P = .02). There were increases in telehealth and decreases in in-person visits after March 11, 2020 though changes did not reach statistical significance. At least 15 (68%) wanted to continue chronic disease management, preventative care, and mental/behavioral health via telehealth after COVID-19. Most felt that telehealth was easy to use and improved the health, safety, and timeliness of care of patients, but not work satisfaction or access to care. Difficulty accessing physical devices, Internet, and data was the most-cited barrier to maintaining and accessing telehealth. Conclusions: Nearly all participants cited significant benefits and barriers to telehealth that impacted perceived access to care and sustainability. SRFCs’ experiences may be modulated by their underserved populations and role in student education. Addressing barriers, particularly patient- and clinic-level technology challenges, could work to improve inequities in telehealth uptake.

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

An 82-year-old man presented with intermittent episodes of slurred speech during his evening meals after receiving the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. Thorough evaluation was conducted including lab work and EMG confirming a new diagnosis of late-onset myasthenia gravis. Despite treatment, the patient progressed rapidly to severe exacerbation requiring intubation and placement of a PEG tube. Infections provoking new diagnosis and exacerbations of myasthenia gravis have been reported. New diagnosis of myasthenia gravis associated with the COVID-19 vaccine is rarely reported. This case highlights the need for clinicians to be aware of the uncommon presenting symptoms in late-onset myasthenia gravis and the possibility of vaccine provoked diagnoses of immune mediated diseases.