Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented expansion of outpatient telemedicine in the United States in all types of health systems, including safety-net health systems. These systems generally serve low-income, racially/ethnically/linguistically diverse patients, many of whom face barriers to digital health access. These patients' perspectives are vital to inform ongoing, equitable implementation efforts.MethodsTwenty-five semi-structured interviews exploring a theoretical framework of technology acceptability were conducted from March through July 2020. Participants had preferred languages of English, Spanish, or Cantonese and were recruited from three clinics (general medicine, obstetrics, and pulmonary) within the San Francisco Health Network. Both deductive and inductive coding were performed. In a secondary analysis, qualitative data were merged with survey data to relate perspectives to demographic factors and technology access/use.ResultsParticipants were diverse with respect to language (52% non-English-speaking), age (range 23-71), race/ethnicity (24% Asian, 20% Black, 44% Hispanic/Latinx, 12% White), & smartphone use (80% daily, 20% weekly or less). All but 2 had a recent telemedicine visit (83% telephone). Qualitative results revealed that most participants felt telemedicine visits fulfilled their medical needs, were convenient, and were satisfied with their telemedicine care. However, most still preferred in-person visits, expressing concern that tele-visits relied on patients' abilities to access telemedicine, as well as monitor and manage their own health without in-person physical evaluation.ConclusionsHigh satisfaction with telemedicine can co-exist with patient-expressed hesitations surrounding the perceived effectiveness, self-efficacy, and digital access barriers associated with a new model of care. More research is needed to guide how healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions and communicate about visit modalities to support high-quality care that responds to patients' needs and circumstances.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted safety-net health care systems to rapidly implement telemedicine services with little prior experience, causing disparities in access to virtual visits. While much attention has been given to patient barriers, less is known regarding system-level factors influencing telephone versus video-visit adoption. As telemedicine remains a preferred service for patients and providers, and reimbursement parity will not continue for audio visits, health systems must evaluate how to support higher-quality video visit access.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess health system-level factors and their impact on telephone and video visit adoption to inform sustainability of telemedicine for ambulatory safety-net sites.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey among ambulatory care clinicians at a hospital-linked ambulatory clinic network serving a diverse, publicly insured patient population between May 28 and July 14, 2020. We conducted bivariate analyses assessing health care system-level factors associated with (1) high telephone adoption (4 or more visits on average per session); and (2) video visit adoption (at least 1 video visit on average per session).ResultsWe collected 311 responses from 643 eligible clinicians, yielding a response rate of 48.4%. Clinician respondents (N=311) included 34.7% (n=108) primary or urgent care, 35.1% (n=109) medical, and 7.4% (n=23) surgical specialties. Our sample included 178 (57.2%) high telephone adopters and 81 (26.05%) video adopters. Among high telephone adopters, 72.2% utilized personal devices for telemedicine (vs 59.0% of low telephone adopters, P=.04). Video nonadopters requested more training in technical aspects than adopters (49.6% vs 27.2%, P

BackgroundExtreme disparities in access, experience, and outcomes highlight the need to transform how pregnancy care is designed and delivered in the United States, especially for low-income individuals and people of color.MethodsWe used human-centered design (HCD) to understand the challenges facing Medicaid-insured pregnant people and design interventions to address these challenges. The HCD method has three phases: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation. This study focused on the first and second. In the Inspiration phase we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of stakeholders who had either received or participated in the care of Medicaid-insured pregnant people within our community, with a specific emphasis on representation from marginalized communities. Using a general inductive approach to thematic analysis, we identified themes, which were then framed into design opportunities. In the Ideation phase, we conducted structured brainstorming sessions to generate potential prototypes of solutions, which were tested and iterated upon through a series of community events and engagement with a diverse community advisory group.ResultsWe engaged a total of 171 stakeholders across both phases of the HCD methodology. In the Inspiration phase, interviews with 23 community members and an eight-person focus group revealed seven insights centered around two main themes: (1) racism and discrimination create major barriers to access, experience, and the ability to deliver high-value pregnancy care; (2) pregnancy care is overmedicalized and does not treat the pregnant person as an equal and informed partner. In the Ideation phase, 162 ideas were produced and translated into eight solution prototypes. Community scoring and feedback events with 140 stakeholders led to the progressive refinement and selection of three final prototypes: (1) implementing telemedicine (video visits) within the safety-net system, (2) integrating community-based peer support workers into healthcare teams, and (3) delivering co-located pregnancy-related care and services into high-need neighborhoods as a one-stop shop.ConclusionsUsing HCD methodology and a collaborative community-health system approach, we identified gaps, opportunities, and solutions to address perinatal care inequities within our urban community. Given the urgent need for implementable and effective solutions, the design process was particularly well-suited because it focuses on understanding and centering the needs and values of stakeholders, is multi-disciplinary through all phases, and results in prototyping and iteration of real-world solutions.

Introduction Methods Results Conclusion Centering affected individuals and forming equitable institutional–community partnerships are necessary to meaningfully transform care delivery systems. We describe our use of the PRECEDE‐PROCEED framework to design, plan, and implement a novel care delivery system to address perinatal inequities in San Francisco.Community engagement (PRECEDE phases 1–2) informed the “Pregnancy Village” prototype, which would unite key organizations to deliver valuable services alongside one another, as a recurring “one‐stop‐shop” community‐based event, delivered in an uplifting, celebratory, and healing environment. Semi‐structured interviews with key partners identified participation facilitators and barriers (PRECEDE phases 3–4) and findings informed our implementation roadmap. We measured feasibility through the number of events successfully produced and attended, and organizational engagement through meeting attendance and surveys.The goals of Pregnancy Village resonated with key partners. Most organizations identified resource constraints and other participation barriers; all committed to the requested 12‐month pilot. During its first year, 10 pilot events were held with consistent organizational participation and high provider engagement.Through deep engagement and equitable partnerships between community and institutional stakeholders, novel systems of care delivery can be implemented to better meet comprehensive community needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo examine the association between expanded access to collaborative midwifery and laborist services and cesarean delivery rates.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study at a community hospital between 2005 and 2014. In 2011, privately insured women changed from a private practice model to one that included 24-hour midwifery and laborist coverage. Primary cesarean delivery rates among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex women and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) rates among women with prior cesarean delivery were compared before and after the change. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the effects of the change on the odds of primary cesarean delivery and VBAC; an interrupted time-series analysis estimated the annual rates before and after the expansion.ResultsThere were 3,560 nulliparous term singleton vertex deliveries and 1,324 deliveries with prior cesarean delivery during the study period; 45% were among privately insured women whose care model changed. The primary cesarean delivery rate among these privately insured women decreased after the change, from 31.7% to 25.0% (P=.005, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.81). The interrupted time-series analysis estimated a 7% drop in the primary cesarean delivery rate in the year after the expansion and a decrease of 1.7% per year thereafter. The VBAC rate increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% afterward (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.08-3.80).ConclusionThe change from a private practice to a collaborative midwifery-laborist model was associated with a decrease in primary cesarean rates and an increase in VBAC rates.Level of evidenceII.

ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to examine the association between labor and delivery practice model and cesarean delivery rates at a community hospital.Study desginThis was a retrospective cohort study of 9381 singleton live births at 1 community hospital, at which women were provided labor and delivery care under 1 of 2 distinct practice models: a traditional private practice model and a midwife-physician laborist practice model. Cesarean rates were compared by practice model, adjusting for potential sociodemographic and clinical confounders. Statistical comparisons were performed using the χ(2) test and multivariable logistical regression.ResultsCompared with women managed under the midwife/laborist model, women in the private model were significantly more likely to have a cesarean delivery (31.6% vs 17.3%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73-2.58). Women with nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex gestations also were more likely to have a cesarean delivery if they were cared for in the private model (29.8% vs 15.9%; P < .001; aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.58) as were women who had a prior cesarean delivery (71.3% vs 41.4%; P < .001; aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.74-5.88).ConclusionIn this community hospital setting, a midwife-physician laborist practice model was associated with lower cesarean rates than a private practice model.

Objective: To determine interest in and barriers to video visits in safety-net patients with diverse age, racial/ethnic, or linguistic background.Materials and Methods: We surveyed patients in an urban safety-net system to assess: interest in video visits; ability to successfully complete test video visits; and barriers to successful completion of test video visits.Results: Among 202 participants, of which 177 (87.6%) were persons of color and 113 (55.9%) preferred non-English languages, 132 (65.3%) were interested in and 109 (54.0%) successfully completed a test video visit. Younger age, non-English preference, and prior smartphone application use were associated with interest. Over half (n = 112) reported barriers to video visits; Internet/data access was the most common barrier (n = 50, 24.8%).Conclusion: Safety-net patients are interested in video visits and able to successfully complete test visits. Internet or mobile data access is a common barrier in even urban safety-net settings and may impact equitable telemedicine access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many Medicaid programs and private health plans are implementing new models of maternity care reimbursement, and clinicians face mounting pressure to demonstrate high-quality care at a lower cost. Clinicians will be better prepared to meet these challenges with a fuller understanding of new payment models and the opportunities they present. We describe the structure of maternity care episode payments and recommend 4 ways that clinicians can prepare for success as value-based payment models are implemented: identify opportunities to improve outcomes and experience, measure quality, reduce waste, and work in teams across settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]