Search

Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.

One criticism of published curricula addressing implicit bias is that few achieve skill development in implicit bias recognition and management (IBRM). To inform the development of skills-based curricula addressing IBRM, we conducted a scoping review of the literature inquiring, "What interventions exist focused on IBRM in professions related to social determinants of health: education, law, social work, and the health professions inclusive of nursing, allied health professions, and medicine?" Authors searched eight databases for articles published from 2000 to 2020. Included studies: (1) described interventions related to implicit bias; and (2) addressed knowledge, attitude and/or skills as outcomes. Excluded were interventions solely focused on reducing/neutralizing implicit bias. Article review for inclusion and data charting occurred independently and in duplicate. Investigators compared characteristics across studies; data charting focused on educational and assessment strategies. Fifty-one full-text articles for data charting and synthesis, with more than 6568 learners, were selected. Educational strategies included provocative/engagement triggers, the Implicit Association Test, reflection and discussion, and various active learning strategies. Most assessments were self-report, with fewer objective measures. Eighteen funded studies utilized federal, foundation, institutional, and private sources. This review adds to the literature by providing tangible examples of curricula to complement existing frameworks, and identifying opportunities for further research in innovative skills-based instruction, learner assessment, and development and validation of outcome metrics. Continued research addressing IBRM would enable learners to develop and practice skills to recognize and manage their implicit biases during clinical encounters, thereby advancing the goal of improved, equitable patient outcomes.

In their article, Gray and colleagues explored how the 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have influenced evaluation bias against minoritized groups in graduate medical education. The editorialists discuss the findings and propose other actions to diversify the medical workforce and help achieve the goal of health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]