Search

BackgroundThe social media site Twitter has 145 million daily active users worldwide and has become a popular forum for users to communicate their health care concerns and experiences as patients. In the fall of 2018, a hashtag titled #DoctorsAreDickheads emerged, with almost 40,000 posts calling attention to health care experiences. ObjectiveThis study aims to identify common health care conditions and conceptual themes represented within the phenomenon of this viral Twitter hashtag. MethodsWe analyzed a random sample of 5.67% (500/8818) available tweets for qualitative analysis between October 15 and December 31, 2018, when the hashtag was the most active. Team coders reviewed the same 20.0% (100/500) tweets and the remainder individually. We abstracted the user’s health care role and clinical conditions from the tweet and user profile, and used phenomenological content analysis to identify prevalent conceptual themes through sequential open coding, memoing, and discussion of concepts until an agreement was reached. ResultsOur final sample comprised 491 tweets and unique Twitter users. Of this sample, 50.5% (248/491) were from patients or patient advocates, 9.6% (47/491) from health care professionals, 4.3% (21/491) from caregivers, 3.7% (18/491) from academics or researchers, 1.0% (5/491) from journalists or media, and 31.6% (155/491) from non–health care individuals or other. The most commonly mentioned clinical conditions were chronic pain, mental health, and musculoskeletal conditions (mainly Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). We identified 3 major themes: disbelief in patients’ experience and knowledge that contributes to medical errors and harm, the power inequity between patients and providers, and metacommentary on the meaning and impact of the #DoctorsAreDickheads hashtag. ConclusionsPeople publicly disclose personal and often troubling health care experiences on Twitter. This adds new accountability for the patient-provider interaction, highlights how harmful communication affects diagnostic safety, and shapes the public’s viewpoint of how clinicians behave. Hashtags such as this offer valuable opportunities to learn from patient experiences. Recommendations include developing best practices for providers to improve communication, supporting patients through challenging diagnoses, and promoting patient engagement.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine care dramatically expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterized facilitators and barriers to telemedicine implementation among safety-net primary care clinics serving patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). METHODS: We collected data on telemedicine volume and patient demographics among safety-net clinics participating in a telemedicine learning collaborative. Data on various metrics were reported to the collaborative from February 2019 through August 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinical and quality leaders, purposively sampling clinics serving high proportions of patients with LEP. We analyzed interviews with a mixed inductive-deductive approach applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: By September 2020, the 23 sites served 121,589 unique patients with in-person and 120,338 with telephone visits; 47% of these patients had LEP. Of 10,897 unique patients served by video visits, 38% had LEP. As a proportion of total visits, telemedicine (telephone and video) visits increased from 0-17% in October 2019-March 2020 to 10-98% in March-August 2020. We conducted 14 interviews at 11 sites. Themes included (1) existing telemedicine platforms and interpreter services were not optimized to support patients with LEP; (2) clinics invested significant labor iterating workflows; (3) sites with technological infrastructure and language-concordant staff were best suited to serve patients; (4) patients speaking less-represented languages or experiencing intersecting literacy barriers were underserved with telemedicine. Interviewees recommended innovations in telemedicine platforms and community-based access. CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net sites relied on existing resources to accommodate patients with LEP, but struggled providing access for the most marginalized. Proactive, data-driven strategies to address patient and community barriers as well as optimize clinical workflows with high-quality, certified medical interpreters are needed to ensure equitable access.

BackgroundSouth Asians, inclusive of individuals originating in India, Pakistan, Maldives, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal, comprise the largest diaspora in the world, with large South Asian communities residing in the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, and elsewhere. There is evidence that South Asian communities have disproportionately experienced COVID-19 infections and mortality. WhatsApp, a free messaging app, is widely used in transnational communication within the South Asian diaspora. Limited studies exist on COVID-19-related misinformation specific to the South Asian community on WhatsApp. Understanding communication on WhatsApp may improve public health messaging to address COVID-19 disparities among South Asian communities worldwide.ObjectiveWe developed the COVID-19-Associated misinfoRmation On Messaging apps (CAROM) study to identify messages containing misinformation about COVID-19 shared via WhatsApp.MethodsWe collected messages forwarded globally through WhatsApp from self-identified South Asian community members between March 23 and June 3, 2021. We excluded messages that were in languages other than English, did not contain misinformation, or were not relevant to COVID-19. We deidentified each message and coded them for one or more content categories, media types (eg, video, image, text, web link, or a combination of these elements), and tone (eg, fearful, well intentioned, or pleading). We then performed a qualitative content analysis to arrive at key themes of COVID-19 misinformation.ResultsWe received 108 messages; 55 messages met the inclusion criteria for the final analytic sample; 32 (58%) contained text, 15 (27%) contained images, and 13 (24%) contained video. Content analysis revealed the following themes: "community transmission" relating to misinformation on how COVID-19 spreads in the community; "prevention" and "treatment," including Ayurvedic and traditional remedies for how to prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; and messaging attempting to sell "products or services" to prevent or cure COVID-19. Messages varied in audience from the general public to South Asians specifically; the latter included messages alluding to South Asian pride and solidarity. Scientific jargon and references to major organizations and leaders in health care were included to provide credibility. Messages with a pleading tone encouraged users to forward them to friends or family.ConclusionsMisinformation in the South Asian community on WhatsApp spreads erroneous ideas regarding disease transmission, prevention, and treatment. Content evoking solidarity, "trustworthy" sources, and encouragement to forward messages may increase the spread of misinformation. Public health outlets and social media companies must actively combat misinformation to address health disparities among the South Asian diaspora during the COVID-19 pandemic and in future public health emergencies.

BackgroundRacial/ethnic disparities in anticoagulation management are well established. Differences in warfarin monitoring can contribute to these disparities and should be measured.ObjectiveWe assessed for differences in international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring by race/ethnicity and language preference across safety-net care systems serving predominantly low-income, ethnically diverse populations.DesignCross-sectional analysis of process and safety data shared from the Safety Promotion Action Research and Knowledge Network (SPARK-Net) initiative, a consortium of five California safety-net hospital systems.ParticipantsEligible patients were at least 18 years old, received warfarin for at least 56 days during the measurement period from July 2015 to June 2017, and had INR testing in an ambulatory care setting at a participating healthcare system.Main measuresWe conducted a scaled Poisson regression for adjusted rate ratio of having at least one INR checked per 56-day time period for which a patient had a warfarin prescription. Adjusting for age, sex, healthcare system, and insurance status/type, we assessed for racial/ethnic and language disparities in INR monitoring.Key resultsOf 8129 patients, 3615 (44%) were female; 1470 (18%), Black/African American; 3354 (41%), Hispanic/Latinx; 1210 (15%), Asian; 1643 (20%), White; and 452 (6%), other. Three thousand five hundred forty-nine (45%) were non-English preferring. We did not observe statistically significant disparities in the rate of appropriate INR monitoring by race/ethnicity or language; the primary source of variation was by healthcare network. Older age, female gender, and uninsured patients had a slightly higher rate of appropriate INR monitoring, but differences were not clinically significant.ConclusionsWe did not find a race/ethnicity nor language disparity in INR monitoring; safety-net site was the main source of variation.

In the wake of the racial injustices laid bare in 2020, on top of centuries of systemic racism, it is clear we need actionable strategies to fundamentally restructure health care systems to achieve racial/ethnic health equity. This paper outlines the pillars of a health equity framework from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, overlaying a concrete example of telemedicine equity. Telemedicine is a particularly relevant and important topic, given the growing evidence of disparities in uptake by racial/ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the new standard of care that telemedicine represents post-pandemic. We present approaches for telemedicine equity across the domains of: (1) strategic priorities of a health care organization, (2) structures and processes to advance equity, (3) strategies to address multiple determinants of health, (4) elimination of institutional racism and oppression, and (5) meaningful partnerships with patients and communities.

The exponential growth of telemedicine in ambulatory care triggered by the COVID-19 public health emergency has undoubtedly impacted the quality of care and patient safety. In particular, the increased adoption of remote care has impacted communication, care teams, and patient engagement, which are key factors that impact patient safety in ambulatory care. In this perspective, we draw on a scoping review of the literature, our own clinical experiences, and conversations with patient safety experts to describe how changes in communication, care teams, and patient engagement have impacted two high priority areas in ambulatory safety: diagnostic errors and medication safety. We then provide recommendations for research funders, researchers, healthcare systems, policy makers, and healthcare payors for how to improve patient safety in telemedicine based on what is currently known as well as next steps for how to advance understanding of the safety implications of telemedicine utilization.

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

ObjectivesSafety-net health care systems, serving vulnerable populations, see longer delays to timely colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), which may contribute to existing disparities. We sought to identify root causes of colonoscopy delay after positive FOBT result in the primary care safety net.MethodsWe conducted a multisite root cause analysis of cases of delayed colonoscopy, identifying cases where there was a delay of greater than 6 months in completing or scheduling a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive FOBT. We identified cases across 5 California health systems serving low-income, vulnerable populations. We developed a semistructured interview guide based on precedent work. We conducted telephone individual interviews with primary care providers (PCPs) and patients. We then performed qualitative content analysis of the interviews, using an integrated inductive-deductive analytic approach, to identify themes related to recurrent root causes of colonoscopy delay.ResultsWe identified 12 unique cases, comprising 5 patient and 11 PCP interviews. Eight patients completed colonoscopy; median time to colonoscopy was 11.0 months (interquartile range, 6.3 months). Three patients had advanced adenomatous findings. Primary care providers highlighted system-level root causes, including inability to track referrals between primary care and gastroenterology, lack of protocols to follow up with patients, lack of electronic medical record interoperability, and lack of time or staffing resources, compelling tremendous additional effort by staff. In contrast, patients' highlighted individual-level root causes included comorbidities, social needs, and misunderstanding the importance of the FOBT. There was a little overlap between PCP and patient-elicited root causes.ConclusionsCurrent protocols do not accommodate communication between primary care and gastroenterology. Interventions to address specific barriers identified include improved interoperability between PCP and gastroenterology scheduling systems, protocols to follow-up on incomplete colonoscopies, accommodation for support and transport needs, and patient-friendly education. Interviewing both patients and PCPs leads to richer analysis of the root causes leading to delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

ObjectivesPatients and caregivers are the primary stakeholders in ambulatory safety, given they perform daily chronic disease self-management, medication administration and outpatient follow-up. However, little attention has been given to their role in adverse events. We identified themes related to patient and caregiver factors and challenges in ambulatory safety incident reports from a Patient Safety Organization.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods analysis of ambulatory incident reports submitted to the Collaborative Healthcare Patient Safety Organization, including 450 hospitals or clinic members in 13 US states. We included events that had patient and/or caregiver behavioural, socioeconomic and clinical factors that may have contributed to the event. Two members of the team independently coded patient/caregiver factors, with dual coding of 20% of events. We then conducted a 'frequent item set' analysis to identify which factors most frequently co-occurred. We applied inductive analysis to the most frequent sets to interpret themes. Our team included a diverse stakeholder advisory council of patients, caregivers and healthcare staff.ResultsWe analysed 522 incident reports and excluded 73 for a final sample of 449 events. Our co-occurrence analysis found the following three themes: (1) clinical advice may conflict with patient priorities; (2) breakdowns in communication and patient education cause medication adverse events and (3) patients with disabilities are vulnerable to the external environment.ConclusionsAmbulatory safety reports capture both structural and behavioural factors contributing to adverse events. Actionable takeaways include the following: improving clinician counselling of patients to convey medical advice to elicit priorities, enhanced education regarding medication adverse events and expanding safety precautions for patients with disabilities at home. Ambulatory safety reporting must include patients in reporting and event review for better mitigation of future harm.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to analyze diverse patients' experiences throughout the medication use process to inform the development of overarching interventions that support safe medication use in community settings.MethodsUsing a qualitative observational approach, we conducted approximately 18 hours of direct observation of the medication use process across multiple settings for a sample of vulnerable, high-risk patients. Observers recorded detailed field notes during the observations. To enrich the observational findings, we also conducted six semistructured interviews with medication safety experts representing a diversity of perspectives. Barriers and facilitators to safe medication use were identified based on inductive coding of the data.ResultsA variety of safety vulnerabilities plague all stages of the medication use process and many of the well-established evidence-based interventions aimed at improving the safety of medication use at key stages of the process have not been widely implemented in community settings observed in this study. Key safety vulnerabilities identified include: limited English proficiency, low health literacy, lack of clinician continuity, incomplete medication reconciliation and counseling, unsafe medication storage and disposal habits, and conflicting healthcare agendas with caregivers.ConclusionsOur findings underscore a need for overarching, comprehensive interventions that span the entire process of medication use, including integrated communication systems between clinicians, pharmacies, and patients, and a "patient navigator" program that assists patients in navigating the entire medication-taking process. Collective ownership of the medication management system and mutual motivation for devising collaborative solutions is needed among key sectors.

ObjectiveWe sought to test whether participation in an online group including IUD users influenced IUD-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among IUD non-users, as a proof-of-concept evaluation of information dissemination for less commonly used or novel contraceptives.Study designWe conducted a blinded, randomized controlled trial on the effect of online communication with IUD users within an online program called Birth Control Connect. Participants were women age 18-45 living in the United States who had never used an IUD. We invited participants randomized to the intervention to join two-week, nine-member discussion groups including four satisfied IUD users and five IUD non-users; we invited control participants to groups including nine IUD non-users. We performed chi-squared tests on IUD knowledge, information-seeking, informational support and use in immediate post-surveys, and t-tests comparing change in IUD attitudes and frequency of logins to discussion groups.ResultsWe invited 488 IUD non-users and enrolled them into 70 groups between October 2015 and April 2016. We found increased positive attitudes towards the IUD in the intervention arm (0.65-point increase between pre- and post-surveys, versus 0.05 mean change for control arm, p = 0.03 for hormonal IUD, with a trend in the same direction for the non-hormonal IUD). Informational support also increased, with 70.3% of intervention arm participants self-reporting that they gained a better idea of what the IUD would be like, compared to 51.3% in control arm (p

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic's patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies.